Wreck the Fed it's currently free but it will be transitioning to a paid game.
You can see the announcement here
Wreck the Fed will now be sold for $1, which will allow me to make more content more often. Many thanks to all the people who got on the train early.
What an odd comment
Those reviews (and the reviewers' names) look legit.
How dare you besmirch the reputations of the great MegaMilfSlayer69, sexTM and… Sony!
Fight inflation the American way: by shooting it in the face.
Or by adding this game to your account before it costs you.
much of the agitprop around public institutions is designed to erode trust in democratic governments so the private sector can move in.
In regards to the fed, ending the ability to control monetary measures leaves the market open to manipulation by the largest stakeholders, billionaires and hedge funds. This would be a grand culmination of 30 years of free market neoliberalism that has impoverished the middle and lower class and enriched the wealthiest humans in history. its a fine game for cookers and red pilled neoreactionary toolbags
Based
This makes no sense at all since central banking and quantitative easing is widely considered to be a neoliberal economic policy and one of the main drivers of wealth inequality that only benefits the financial sector. Similarly, mass immigration is a neoliberal policy that enriches the property lobby and large banks which 'free market neoliberal critics' often neglect to mention.
Just because people who criticise public institutions disagree with you on the exact solutions doesn't mean they don't have legitimate grievances.
Completely wrong. Wealth inequality has gotten dramatically worse due to the Fed and, most importantly, ending the gold standard/currency backed by hard assets.
When a currency is constantly inflating (aka being devalued) , anyone with spare money will pour that money into assets, such as stocks and housing. This dramatically benefits the wealthy and allows them to get even wealthier with ease, while the poor are struggling to save money to buy their first asset as those assets keep constantly inflating, making it harder and harder. Meanwhile, the wealthy portfolios go up forever, and they can leverage that into more assets.
Reminder that Quantitative Easing is an asset/liquidity swap and not just printing money as the circlejerking would suggest.
The US made a net profit on their "printing" of money from the GFC, as they did on TARP. The same is occuring again now in the US and Australia as the bonds held by the central banks mature and/or are sold off. That's how the swap works after all.
The US' embrace of QE after its success in Japan is one of the key reasons their economic recovery was so much smoother than Europe's which largely persued ineffective austerity measures - to this day much of Europe never recovered from '08. There was excess stimulus during/post covid but it's understandable that everyone wanted to avoid the jobless recovery of the GFC and didn't anticipate such a rapid recovery subsequent supply chain crisis + wartime energy crisis.
The hatred for monetary policy is largely driven by media sensationalism, populism and general economic illiteracy - which can be seen everytime someone parrots the same MoNeY pRiNtEr line.
Spend less time on twitter, people don't talk this way.
If the net positive is more money exists today than it did yesterday, money has been printed. Sure there is more to it, but at the end of the day they did create money out of thin air to subsidising debt in order to make borrowing cheaper and more available. No central bank has an intention on dramatically shrinking their balance sheets, and if they were to they’d take massive losses. Those massive potential losses represent the excess liquidity, in other words “printed money”, in the system today.
https://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2022/images/sp-ag-2022-05-23…
Bonds held by the RBA would ordinarily mature and be paid out by the government (this is the % of budget spent on interest). Except since it's held by the RBA the government pays itself and the balance sheet is unloaded. In the case of Australia we stuck to 10-year bonds and below hence the RBA's balance sheet inherently shrinks.
Large unrealised valuation losses are occuring due to high interest rates but overall the RBA is in a fine spot and still expected to run a profit and replenish their reserves without government assistance by the end of it all.
The unrealised losses represent the cost of injected liquidity. If I had the ability to buy rocks from the market at $10000000000 per rock from money that I printed out of nowhere, and never sold the rocks then that is unrealised losses and I’ll be fine in 10 years don’t worry, those rocks will be worth the same as I bought them, and let’s not factor in the opportunity cost of inflation as well, 1000 spent, and 1000 returned in 10 years is not the same value.
@lowlifesphere: The unrealised losses come from market yields on securities, not the cost of liquidity. Bond yields are high right now in line with interest rates which means the RBA must account for these losses, yet holding the bonds to maturity means the ultimate return to the RBA is unchanged - they legally must account as if they were selling the bonds to markets today well below face value despite the fact the final accounting of QE is already largely set in stone. Low interest rates and inflation post the GFC meant these on-paper losses didn't happen then, so no inherent cost of liquidity.
The RBA purchased these bonds at coupon rates above market yields which already actively offsets inflation devaluation on the assets themselves. The underlying earnings of the bonds are already higher than the devaluation of inflation which has already peaked.
Arguing the money is printed is ridiculous because money is typed into existence for all bank loans, bond payouts, government spending etc. No one complains about Westpac printing money for a business loan, they care about accounting and the idea that the loan is eventually repaid.
The same is true for QE, it is, by all means, the government reversing the sale of its bonds to the private market and taking back the bonds in exchange for an instant payout. If the RBA gave out free bonds and then purchased them back you can argue free money was printed out of thin air but that's not what happenened.
It didn't come out of thin air it came from ending an existing credit agreement with the consent of all parties. To say it is printing money out of thin air is no different to saying buying a government bond is the same as burning cash, it's an insane statement that requires ignoring all the credit/accounting/agreements involved.
At the end of the day mmt is money printing, disguised behind esoteric procedures. Central bank creates currency out of thin air to manipulate markets.
@lowlifesphere: QE is not MMT. Purchasing bonds back in economic downturns is not the same as a government printing money freely and using taxation as a spending limit.
Virtually all actual economists can get behind unconventional monetary policy but usually despise MMT.
@TrulyUnicorn: qe has been fuelling mmt. virtually all economists work for some fund or bank and are obviously all for anything that props up markets.
I’ve even heard people defend QE as not money printing because “there’s no printer involved, it’s just numbers on a computer!” The entire point of QE is that it directly increases the monetary base. The phrase ‘printing money’ is in a sense analogous, because money is now digital, but it is still fundamentally true.
It’s also ironic that you’d say it isn’t printing money and justify it on the basis that it is profitable for the Government.
![[PC, Steam] Wreck the Fed - Free Game @ Steam](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/66/791866.jpg?h=80d8e02f)
I'm sure Donald will buy in