The reason I asked the math question is because it's terribly relevant to your root misconception. But it's cool if you dont care, I have an ignore list.
Thanks for confirming what I said earlier.
Eh; you really know that someone has lost an argument when they respond to an argument by quoting the last portion of it about being ignored for having a silly opinion, making a not-really-witty-just-an-ass remark, and completely ignoring the argument. It's fool-proof.
I have no idea whether you are being sarcastic.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/06/what-are-the-bankers-up-to/
An interesting perspective on things with the ECB from a couple years back.
It took me a while to realize that the author uses "liberals" in a way that doesn't include me.
It’s a tenet of liberalism — and a premise of the conversation Krugman is part of — that there are conflicting opinions, but not conflicting interests
Otherwise I remember something my WiSo teacher ("Wirtschaft und Solziales", "Economics and Social Stuff") told us: First public spending was cut by letting off cleaning personnel, then they were replaced by more expensive contractors from multinational companies, all as part of that one deal they did.
We have drawn the line in the wrong place, leaving too many policy decisions in the realm of politics and too few in the realm of technocracy. . . . the argument for the Fed’s independence applies just as forcefully to many other areas of government policy. Many policy decisions require complex technical judgments and have consequences that stretch into the distant future. Think of decisions on health policy (should we spend more on cancer or aids research?), tax policy (should we reduce taxes on capital gains?), or environmental policy (how should we cope with damage to the ozone layer?). Yet in such cases, elected politicians make the key decisions. Why should monetary policy be different? . . . The justification for central bank independence is valid. Perhaps the model should be extended to other arenas. . . . The tax system would surely be simpler, fairer, and more efficient if . . . left to an independent technical body like the Federal Reserve rather than to congressional committees.
What the fuck. If that actually is some kind of popular opinion, how can people
not see this as a direct attack on democracy?