Google: enfilade'' architecture

??

Is it not just as likely that the fed was tapering its quantitative tightening?

At the beginning of 2019, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell started talking about ‘patience’ with regards to monetary policy, and the Fed subsequently announced that it would put the brakes on its quantitative tightening programme, which will allow markets a bit of breathing space. The current plan is for a reduction in Treasury security purchases to be capped at $15bn per month from May 2019 (a 50% reduction from the previous cap), and for the cap to be removed (i.e. quantitative tightening stopped) from
October 2019. The extra liquidity available should help to support markets throughout the year and sustain the year-to-date rebound.

But did they use the word tapering about that? The central banks don't want to keep purchasing assets forever, or at least, the original idea was that it would be temporary. But when they tried to stop, it caused problems on the markets, hence the idea of tapering the level of asset purchases to remove the stimulus slowly and cause less of a shock. Plus, they've sometimes had to increase the use of the stimulus (by increasing asset purchases) to avert downturns. I don't think anyone is trying to taper back up to a higher level of asset purchases,  they're just sometimes making more because they don't like what happens when they reduce QE. The market generally responds positively to asset purchases (which is why they make them in the first place), so tapering seems a weird word to use about that direction, unless you're maybe trying to make what you're doing sound smaller to politicians who don't agree with political interference in the market  Can you give me an example of where increasing asset purchases has been referred to as tapering?

Bingo cards were 25 cents each. One card is good for one game. After he had spent $1 on four Bingo cards, he had won $11. At that point, he quit playing Bingo. Grubstake is the money he was willing or had available to spend on playing Bingo.

'One dollar in' means 'one dollar paid into the pot' (which he did with his four Bingo card purchases).

The festgestellt feels too abrupt to me. He must have won a certain sum of money with each Bingo game.  After the fourth Bingo game, his total winnings were $11. So his realization of being ahead was gradual, with a final "oh nice, I made ten bucks!" feeling. But maybe festgestellt is OK for that.

Thank you both.

*jd./etw. in etw. stärken * klingt nach Notbehelf und richtig schlechtem Deutsch, wie wenn jemand überhaupt nicht mehr weiter weiß, wie das englische Original übersetzt werden soll. Alle englische Versuche klingen für mich überzeugend, nur das Deutsche nicht. jmdn in etwas bestärken, je nach Kontext könnte es sich um 'empowerment', handeln. Es ist einfach nicht idiomatisch und nicht richtig, vermutlich eine schlechte Übersetzung zurück ins Deutsche.

4; Windfall - ok.

Danke für eure Hilfe...
Was wäre (Komma) wenn ich statt "hope" den Begriff "inspire" einsetzen würde? Könnte man dann es ebenso übersetzen? "Erwarte niemals, inspiriere einfach."
Über Sinn oder Unsinn dieses Spruchs will ich gar nicht diskutieren...nur über die Möglichkeit, es so übersetzen zu können.

Unless you're content with gibberish, it's not possible to translate something without addressing meaning.

von timfefe (AU/AT), Last modified: 2021-03-04, 18:40   Spam?  

The construct "da+preposition" (or "da+r+preposition" where the preposition begins with a vowel) does not go very well with a definite relative pronoun, where the object represented by the "da+preposition" is referred to by the following Nebensatz/Relativsatz as a direct object. Examples:

Ich möchte meine Dankbarkeit für das ausdrücken, was Sie für mich getan haben.
And not: Ich möchte meine Dankbarkeit dafür ausdrücken, was Sie für mich getan haben.

Das Meiste von dem, was ich über das Leben weiß, habe ich aus einem einzigen Traum gelernt.
And not: Das Meiste davon, was ich über das Leben weiß, habe ich ...

Ich hasse ihn für das, was er dir angetan hat.
And not: Ich hasse ihn dafür, was er dir angetan hat.

Man sollte mit dem, was man hat, zufrieden sein.
And not: Man sollte damit, was man hat, zufrieden sein.

Having said that, it appears that many German speakers ignore (or are not aware of) the above and use "da+preposition" also when the following Nebensatz refers to the same thing as a direct object.

ähm, ist ja schon drin, das habe ich wohl falsch geschrieben, dass es vorher noch nicht drin war ...
Danke, Windfall, für den Hinweis zum Umformulieren.