Will Boxer side with Goldman Sachs yet again?

Another day, another dollar (to print). Goldman Sachs has called for more of the same economic policy, in other words, more irresponsible Federal monetary creation, and more government debt. This shouldn't be surprising, as Goldman Sachs are some of the main beneficiaries of cheap money from the Federal Reserve and the subsequently derived financial products (and profits). Government debt? No problem to them as long as government keeps the "monetizing debt and printing money" pyramid scheme going. Remember, those who profit the most from pyramid schemes are those that are closest to the top, and Goldman Sachs could hardly be any closer to that peak than if they actually became the Federal government. Come to think of it, many of them are already there.

And what is the downside? Just those nasty "asset bubbles". The same kind that made Goldman Sachs billions. And when the bubble popped, it drove much of their competition out of business, and almost collapsed the entire global financial system. It worked out so well for them last time, they might as well recommend a second go at it. It's a no lose proposal for them.

Are our politicians foolish enough to continue taking advice from the people who profit from the economic demise of the United States? Perhaps someone can ask former stock-broker and current Senate candidate Barbara Boxer what her position is on increased government debt and money printing. Don't forget to call her "Senator". In all fairness, the same question should be asked of her main opponent in the Senate race, GOP candidate Carly Fiorina, who also may have taken some advise from Goldman Sachs in the past.

An excerpt from the Goldman Sachs paper:

Our recently released Global Economics Paper No. 200 entitled “No Rush for the Exit” argues that policymakers should react to the combination of a sluggish recovery and declining inflation with additional policy easing, either via a return to unconventional monetary policy or via further fiscal stimulus. The obvious counterargument is that monetary and fiscal easing carries long-term costs in the form of, respectively, a risk of a renewed asset bubble and a higher public debt burden.