Papastrophe

ben bernanke says he is going to taper off the fed bond buying program but he is going to be

super "accomodative" in keeping interest rates low for "a long time". So how will the fed

be able to keep interest rates low without open market operations like bond buying?

will he lower reserve requirements, increase leverage ratios (which is rarely done), adjust fed fund rate (probably not very effective)???

It just doesnt make sense to me. Anyone know???

did the recent jump in the 10-year bond yield (8% rise) suggest that the economy is doing better but then this is bad news for the fed which has been aggressively buying up bonds??? (80billion per month or something like that?)

just wondering....can someone confirm?

1. Suppose a new medical test shows that those who FAIL this test are far more likely to have an expensive illness over the course of the next year than those who PASS the test. An insurance company discovers that it would cost only 1/2 as much to insure those who have

passed the test as to insure those who have failed it. This company plans

to sell health insurance to persons who have taken and passed the test at

half the price that it charges to others. Can you make a case for why a

government might choose to make it illegal for insurance companies to do

this?

2. Suppose that insurance companies are allowed to offer insurance at one rate

to those who have passed the test and at twice this rate to those who have

failed it. If you had the choice of either (a) taking the test and then buying

insurance at the rate that applies to you given the result of the test or (b)

never taking the test and being insured at the rates that applied before the

test was invented, which option would you choose?

for 1. i was thinking this is like correlation doesnt equal causation, that's why the government would make it illegal.

for 2. i really don't know this answer, i think it depends if you know what ur health is, assuming u know your health more than other people, you would take the test only if you know you will pass it?? but what would you do if you know NOTHING about your health or if you have NO control what the test shows???

please help and be detailed, will give BEST answer.

can you please donate your money and your assets for a better cause, for example to me. Or if you dont want to donate to a stranger, can you donate them to non-profit organizations please. Do all of us a FAVOR.

*If you believe in doomsday and dont want to do this, then you're a selfish idiot and should be quiet.

so i was just wondering what you guys think would fox news do if obama wins?

do you think they will be like dick morris who said if obama wins there wont be another Dem president for the NEXT 100 YEARS and im not making this up!!! he actually said that, look it up!

and what would msnbc do if romney wins? start crying how everyone is RACIST RACIST RACIST RAC.world must be ending.RACISTS...you get my point.

and of course if some third party candidate screws over a few percentage points in key states what would happen?

why romney doesnt release his tax returns if he keeps complaining just how high his taxes are?

if he released them, then we would have a good idea just how high it is and voters would understand

why people like him would need more tax cuts. But if he doesnt release them we have no idea how much high taxes he had to pay.

what does it say about romney?

is he a crony neoclassicist?

points to the best answer, only serious answers please.

can someone please prove that GDP = C + S + T where C = consumption, S = savings, T = taxes?

please? will choose best answer for complete and proof that makes sense.

isn't it a clear conflict of interest when someone can be on the board of the federal reserve bank of new york AND be CEO of JPMorgan???

or is it conflict of interest ONLY when the CEO cares about his multi-million dollar personal stock portfolio and the other executives care about things like shareholders, the customers, you know, the employees, and the stakeholders as a whole?

To conservatives:

healthcare insurance is a high risk business, and that's why the CEOs justify their big bonuses. But isn't insurance suppose to be a low-risk business because it's called insurance? a big reason

is that not everyone is on health insurance, so not a big money pool, that's why insurance companies want more people to get insurance, NOT JUST because they want more money. Thus my question is, with everyone getting insurance, wouldn't insurance costs going to go down?

to liberals: healthcare is a personal right as well as a personal choice. If the person dont want to get insurance and get sick it's their fault. It's not a privilege that can be regulated like car insurance, where if u dont get insurance and cause an accident you will lose your license or other consequences. So my question is where is the constitutionality of this? ALSO how do you expect the government to pay for this? Don't tell me by raising taxes on the rich, because that's not going to work for everything.

when it comes to the general election this november, alot of republicans say that they will vote anybody but obama. However, it seems like these same republicans believe that ron paul is inherently worse than obama, even though many of the other candidates have had their up and downs in polls, and they forget the fact that paul is very similar to all the other republican candidates on most of the issues.

Second of all, to say that you will vote anybody but obama is like saying it doesnt matter if you agree with the republican nominee or if he's the best choice, you will just vote for him simple because he's not obama, even though he could have similar policies as obama, as long as he's not obama you're k with him?

why do republicans think with this logic?

so has your view of jeremy lin's skills changed because of the miami heat game, where he had

8 pts (1/11FG) 3 assists and 8 TOs?

is he not as good as you thought,

is he better than you thought,

is it too early to tell if he's really that good,

or does one game make no big difference on anybody's skill?

or only the playoff games matter and you don't know if the knicks will make it or not???

just want to get your thoughts.

why do people blame rumpeltiltskin for asking for the baby in the fairy tale??? how come they put all the responsibility on him when everyone else in the story was just as irresponsible or even more about their promises?

why do people blame rumpeltiltskin for asking for the baby??? how come they put all the responsibility on him when everyone else in the story was just as irresponsible or even more about their promises?

ok i keep seeing the same anti-romney ads that says "there's alot of reasons not to elect me"....romney's america is not our america etc etc (something similar to that) on youtube

I want to know if anyone knows who's making that ad, it cant be more than one candidate doing it....

I think what she is saying is correct but overgeneralized, i dont have any solid arguments.....

anyone want to offer some opinion on this article? im talking about this in a presentation.

please help i will select best answer.

also what is the economics behind the original rumplestiltskin story

thanks

since the FDIC guarantees to cover the money in your bank for up to $100,000, where does it get the money to make this guarantee if the banks fail? im guessing most people dont have that much in their banks so they can cover it for them, but then if you add them up that's still a large amount.

so how does FDIC keep this promise, does it really have $100,000 for each personal account?

Republicans think that our companies are shouldering too much costs,

so they think we should halt all environmental and financial and rules like obamacare

the companies should get more tax cuts

unions should get out of the way of it

Is it really worth it to cut all the regulations in order to prevent job loss???

if that's the case shouldn't we have the similar standards as those in China or India?

Republicans, like yesterday, kept on saying that we need to cut regulations right now.

My question is if more regulation lead to job loss, why not just have no regulations at all? why make more regulations when you know its going to move companies overseas, less tax revenue, and more layoffs??? Isn't this the logic that Republicans have when it comes to the EPA, Sarbanes-Oxley, and other financial/coporate regulations???