Swiss-style Monetary Policy
"This is what is called ""weasel words"". They're trying to put some authority into their ad, but since they don't have any - they're putting meaningless words that sound important. Monetary policy is the state/central bank policy to control the supply of the available currency. Cannot think of a way to connect it to private investments." "I'm not sure what is traditionally meant by ""Swiss-style monetary policy"" but lately it has meant the same thing as US monetary policy, or Japanese monetary policy, or Euro monetary policy: PRINT. Look how many Swiss Francs it takes to buy a currency that cannot be printed:  I'm not sure why they would be touting ""Swiss-style monetary policy"".   That hasn't been too stellar lately."
Not seeing Marginal Revenue = Marginal Cost, nor the components of GDP.   Marginal thinking is one of the cornerstones of economics and just calculating.   And calculating GDP is more important I would say than just a mention of interest rates, monetary policy or fiscal policy. Few months of loose fiscal policy? It has actually been 4 years and we are on QE3. The FED have been and still are increasing the money supply. (Which is textbook monetary policy during a recession). However, when there is more of something, it is worth less. Inflation and a weaker dollar are coming no matter who is president. That is his only argument. "One interesting part of this history that is often forgotten was how absolutely close we came to a universal basic income under Nixon. FAP went through the (Democratic dominated) House without much trouble in late 1969-early 1970. It carried a very decisive margin. Absent a confluence of rather unique circumstances in 1970 (high among them the Cambodian Campaign-for a host of reasons, that created a chill between Nixon and the Senate, from which their relations would never truly recover), it is not at all hard to imagine it being passed.   One wonders how welfare policy would have developed with that. Keep in mind: FAP was meant to help both the working poor and working class as well as (really, more than) the underclass-which was part of how Moynihan knew how to appeal to Nixon.   Other factors in FAP's downfall include:  1) The domination of the finance committees (these things often were passed down by generation) by strongly conservative Southern Democrats, whose states-being largely still the poorest, the New South was only getting started-would have disproportionately effected by FAP. Largely against their own political interests-unlike the Great Society, FAP would have given recipients direct cash payouts, and would have largely ""gone over their heads"", so to speak. And after the Cambodian Campaign, Nixon could ill afford to alienate them.   2) Nixon's shift in attention in the summer of 1970 to other areas, prominent among them national security and foreign policy. For the former, the violently illegal (to the point where J. Edgar Hoover, no shrinking violet when it came to treating the civil rights of certain US citizens with some flexibility, objected) Huston Plan would be created in the summer of '70. As for the latter, this was when the China initiative was just beginning to take off and Vietnamization getting into high gear following the destruction of the sanctuaries. Absent both of these, Nixon would have his hands full at any rate that autumn with the dual crisis of the Black September and Cienfuegos, right at the moment FAP was in its death throes in front of the aforementioned finance committees.  Nixon would take a subsequent conservative turn for the 1970 elections, following a very... Buchananite/Agnewite strategy, with little to no success, which shaped his 1972 strategy.   3) The strong resistance of the Senate GOP to the measure, especially in the wake of the Great Society. Some proto-libertarians did support the FAP, but intended it to replace the welfare state, as opposed to Nixon wishing to supplement it/reshape it into something more fiscally feasible. The GOP cognoscenti were strongly resistant in general to Nixon's attempts to transform the GOP into something they fundamentally didn't wish to be.   (The ultimate symbolism of this was, had Nixon had his way, his VP and eventual successor would have been John Connally, former Texas governor and LBJ's *de facto* right-hand man cum top fixer, who epitomized the kind of conservative Democrat that Nixon wanted to transform the GOP with-into what would have essentially been a Gaullist/Disraeli Tory style party. This was not the same vision the people who dominated the GOP at the local level had in mind, to say the least, and was a contributing factor into why Nixon didn't invest a lot of energy into stumping for the GOP during the '72 landslide-and why the party returned the favor during Watergate.)   4) The resistance of a lot of Senate liberals to anything that would have given Nixon a domestic success, especially after Cambodia and before the '70 midterms. Merely the Clinton Wars in reverse, in a sense-Clinton's triangulation strategy in 1995, after the Democratic slaughter in the midterms of 1994, was ironically patterned off of Nixon's in 1971 following the disappointing results of the 1970 midterms for the GOP.  The FAP would be attempted again twice, but it never really had the same chance of passing that it did the first time. As for Cheney and Rumsfeld, I'm not terribly shocked. Both of them belong to the heavily natsec influenced wing of the party that historically hasn't had much attachment to small government style thinking found in the Congressional part of the GOP. They both have a knack for thinking politically, too-Cheney defended Bush Senior's decision to not boot the Ba'athists out of Baghdad in the early 90s, when few in the GOP were. The next decade would dramatically change things as the dominant foreign policy ideology of the part transformed to neoconservatism, the ideology of Democratic intellectuals that came over to the basement in the Reagan years and revolted in '92 against Bush the Elder, who epitomized (along with Snowcroft) the old-style Nixon/Kissinger realist foreign policy school of the party. Cheney knew where his bread was buttered and where the winds were going.  (Rumsfeld was also a dove on Vietnam by '71, believe it or not, to the point where it somewhat alienated Nixon and Kissinger. Rumsfeld eventually incurred the wrath of HR Haldeman-*normally*, a very unwise move in the Nixon White House-to the point where he got kicked upstairs to a post in Brussels dealing with NATO. The reason I emphasized *normally* is because this let Rumsfeld escape Watergate completely unscathed. Had that not happened, there's no way he'd have had the clout to pull off the Halloween Massacre in '75, at that youthful age.)" Yes  I kow my questions are broad and debatable, I was looking to spark the interest of multiple perspectives/opinions.   Regarding the strength of western economic fundamentals, I think a lot of it has to do with simply better performance by companies, especially in Western Europe. I think both this performance (companies' broad EPS growth) as well as less anxiety over the future of the Eurozone/PIIG debt crisis has engendered a broad feeling of positive animal spirits.   Imo this has become a recursive self fulfilling prophesy in the markets as people's optimistic expectations of the future leads to higher investment, lending and risk taking, which results in growth, which then rewards and spurs further spending/investment. The other argument (especially in EU) is that the ECB's sustained accommodative monetary policy policy is finally trickling down into European asset prices just like they did for US equities from 2011-2015.   Regarding your series of questions about China/NK, I was genuinely hoping for answers/opinions on those questions you proposed. I think China is playing Trump and the State Dept like a fiddle - stringing us along with this Kim debacle while they quietly consolidate sea territory (man-made military islands) &amp; drilling rights in the South China Sea. "Funny how you're talking about short term economics while I'm talking long term projections. Sweden is on the verge of a housing bubble far worse than the one the US saw in 2008. O don't look at last year and the year before I look at what their policies are doing for the future. You're right I've never lived in Europe but countries with a 50% tax rate on income aren't the ideal situation to live just ask switzerland the most stable and consistent economy in all of Europe and arguably the world for the last decade +. Yes they have income tax but not at an outrageous rate and they also have market and personal freedom at level that shadows what we have here ""the land of the free"" switzerland actually follows our constitution better than our own government does. This country was founded on idea of freedom and states rights. Not an over bearing over reaching federal government. As far as comparing the government to your parents house, that's a comparison clearly made by a simpleton. Your parents role in your life is to teach you responsibility and give your life structure. The government's role is to serve you not steal from you. How did the US make it so long with an income tax?" "See Also:  1. United States of America (USA) history lesson from Stephen Kinzer: #7b, #7c, #7d, and #7e at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/ddlcuvl  2. ""The Origins of the Federal Reserve"" by Murray N. Rothbard: #8b at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/ddlcuvl  3. James Mahaffey on nuclear/atomic power in the USA: #7d at https://np.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/dfmc7kj  Source for #1, #2, and #3: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/d9q9006 via https://www.reddit.com/r/Missing411/comments/41oph0/supernatural_abductions_in_japanese_folklore_by/cz3we2z" Modern banking is operated under central banking which is critical for maintaing a stable keynsian economy.  Without central banking the economy is prone to the boom and bust cycle typical of early twentieth industrialization.    Our money is not backed by 'nothing' it is backed by the faith and credit of the governments issuing them.  Private banks don't issue anything.  What fractional reserve banking does is say that for ever X amount of dollars you have in your vaults you can make Y amount of loans.  This ratio is set by the central bank in what is called the reserve ratio.  If the Fed sets the reserve ratio at 10% and they know the US economy has $10 trillion in circulation than $100 trillion dollars is going to eventually emerge through fractional reserve banking.  This explains inflation.  Of course the central bank could also raise the reserve ratio forcing banks to call in existing loans.  This is deflation.   Now if you're a bank and have $1 million dollars in the bank, a reserve ratio of 10% means you can make up to $10 million in loans without getting in trouble with the Fed.  If the bank makes $10 million in loans and only recuperate $9 million in loans than they fall below the 10% reserve rate ratio and become insolvent, prior to 2008 these banks would go bankrupt, but the Fed has evolved it's roll into either bailing a bank out for it to recover and learn from it's mistakes or to let it go bankrupt.  All people's deposits at these banks however are safe up to $250,000 thanks to the FDIC to protect from bank runs typical of the early twentieth century that intensified boom and bust cycles.    Please don't bring in the Federal Reserve into this unless you want me to prove how stupid you are even more.  I'm poor broke college student with nothing better to do with my time than to win internet arguments right now, you can't win.   **Too stupid, didn't read: banks need to make successful loans or they go out of business, they don't create anything out of thin air.  They just listen to whatever the central bank tells them what to do.** "When will these guys extract their heads out if their asses and actually have a look at the rest of the world?  Take 3 ""countries"" and compare: USA, UK, and EU.   USA and UK did fiscal austerity and Unconventional Monetary policy (QE).   EU did fiscal austerity and stuck to conventional monetary policy (lowered interest rates).  The results: US and UK unemployment figures shrinked since to trough, GDP slowly ticking up, so a weak recovery.   EU has seen little to no improvement in unemployment, and is on the verge of a triple-dip recession.    Now make up your mind on what the FED can or cannot do for unemployment."