Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6546|San Diego, CA, USA
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ … mulus.html

via http://www.drudgereport.com/

telegraph wrote:

The stock of money in the US fell from $14.2 trillion to $13.9 trillion in the three months to April, amounting to an annual rate of contraction of 9.6pc

The M3 figures - which include broad range of bank accounts and are tracked by British and European monetarists for warning signals about the direction of the US economy a year or so in advance - began shrinking last summer. The pace has since quickened.

The stock of money fell from $14.2 trillion to $13.9 trillion in the three months to April, amounting to an annual rate of contraction of 9.6pc. The assets of insitutional money market funds fell at a 37pc rate, the sharpest drop ever.

"It’s frightening," said Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research. "The plunge in M3 has no precedent since the Great Depression. The dominant reason for this is that regulators across the world are pressing banks to raise capital asset ratios and to shrink their risk assets. This is why the US is not recovering properly," he said.
This is where some "Friedman know-how" to pull us out of this cycle would be useful about now.  The future doesn't look bright with Obama's economic policy at the wheel.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England
Damn you for deleting... it's spelled imminent btw, not eminent.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England
We had Keynesians in charge during the 70s when this country experienced stagflation and we've got Keynesians in charge of the treasury today with the same result imminent. One of these decades the Democrats might actually catch up on economic and monetary theory and toss their copies of The General Theory on the scrapheap of history where it belongs.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX
Wait a minute, a year or so ago everyone was raging about all the money being printed and flooding into the economy, now they're raging about that same money being withdrawn from the economy?

Which is it?

We had Keynesians in charge during the 70s when this country experienced stagflation and we've got Keynesians in charge of the treasury today with the same result imminent. One of these decades the Democrats might actually catch up on economic and monetary theory and toss their copies of The General Theory on the scrapheap of history where it belongs.
Please don't try an pretend you understand any of this, you've failed so hard in the past.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5257|foggy bottom
Main Entry: em·i·nent
Pronunciation: \ˈe-mə-nənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin eminent-, eminens, present participle of eminēre to stand out, from e- + -minēre; akin to Latin mont-, mons mountain — more at mount
Date: 15th century
1 : standing out so as to be readily perceived or noted : conspicuous
2 : jutting out : projecting
3 : exhibiting eminence especially in standing above others in some quality or position : prominent

synonyms see famous

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-05-26 20:55:48)

Tu Stultus Es
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5992|Truthistan
We need a little deflation to go with the deleveraging. The bubble has to come down. I would look for the market to go down to levels last seen around the start of the tech or dot com bubbles. You simply can't have all that excessive leverage coming out of the market and not expect deflation. the printing of money was used to replace all those rotten financial instruments, you could almost think of it as a dialysis for the market. bad blood out, good blood in, but the amount money in the system didn't really go up like people are thinking it did. M3 is decreasing because M3 includes tradeable financial instruments. And the reason why M3 is shrinking is that those toxic instruments are being taken off the books, and financial institutions are having to deleverage and that means that they have less money to put into more those paper instruments.

at worst the govt has devalued our currency in order to soften the deflationary blow and bought some time to permit financial institutions to adjust to the new reality.

The crash and the aftershocks we are experiencing were 30 years in the making. We've just corrected for the "no red tape" "we're open for business" folly of reaganomics.... Welcome back to 1980.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Wait a minute, a year or so ago everyone was raging about all the money being printed and flooding into the economy, now they're raging about that same money being withdrawn from the economy?

Which is it?

We had Keynesians in charge during the 70s when this country experienced stagflation and we've got Keynesians in charge of the treasury today with the same result imminent. One of these decades the Democrats might actually catch up on economic and monetary theory and toss their copies of The General Theory on the scrapheap of history where it belongs.
Please don't try an pretend you understand any of this, you've failed so hard in the past.
Just because you don't understand most of what I post on this forum doesn't discredit me in the slightest. Your opinion on any subject is right up there with ruisleipa and rammunition; utterly insignificant.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-27 07:41:37)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Diesel_dyk wrote:

We need a little deflation to go with the deleveraging. The bubble has to come down. I would look for the market to go down to levels last seen around the start of the tech or dot com bubbles. You simply can't have all that excessive leverage coming out of the market and not expect deflation. the printing of money was used to replace all those rotten financial instruments, you could almost think of it as a dialysis for the market. bad blood out, good blood in, but the amount money in the system didn't really go up like people are thinking it did. M3 is decreasing because M3 includes tradeable financial instruments. And the reason why M3 is shrinking is that those toxic instruments are being taken off the books, and financial institutions are having to deleverage and that means that they have less money to put into more those paper instruments.

at worst the govt has devalued our currency in order to soften the deflationary blow and bought some time to permit financial institutions to adjust to the new reality.

The crash and the aftershocks we are experiencing were 30 years in the making. We've just corrected for the "no red tape" "we're open for business" folly of reaganomics.... Welcome back to 1980.
Eh, it's simply because banks are being forced to hold more cash on hand instead of being allowed to lend it out. Since our banks create money via fractional reserve banking practices, when they aren't lending, the amount of money in the system decreases.

Deflation is such a big no no in economics because it increases the costs of borrowing money and it increases a companies real costs in overhead and salaries. Marginal companies then go belly-up because they get hit from both sides.

As for the 'folly of reaganomic' I seem to remember him pulling the country out of the stagflation it experienced under Carter, but that's a different subject.

What we need now is a normalization of our monetary system. We need the Fed Reserve Rate jacked back up to normal levels and we need them to come down off Mount Olympus and stop thinking they can monkey with the economy without shiploads of unintended consequences. Bernanke sucks, Geitner sucks, they all need to go and be replaced with hard money Monetarists.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6647

JohnG@lt wrote:

We had Keynesians in charge during the 70s when this country experienced stagflation and we've got Keynesians in charge of the treasury today with the same result imminent. One of these decades the Democrats might actually catch up on economic and monetary theory and toss their copies of The General Theory on the scrapheap of history where it belongs.
I forgot how along with climate change and social security, Conservatives also don't believe in Keynesian economics.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

ghettoperson wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

We had Keynesians in charge during the 70s when this country experienced stagflation and we've got Keynesians in charge of the treasury today with the same result imminent. One of these decades the Democrats might actually catch up on economic and monetary theory and toss their copies of The General Theory on the scrapheap of history where it belongs.
I forgot how along with climate change and social security, Conservatives also don't believe in Keynesian economics.
I'm not a conservative. Do you understand the difference between Keynesian economic theory and that put forth by Friedman and Hayek? One promotes governmental intervention in an effort to control the market while the other wishes to limit government interaction with it to all but the minimum. Now which do you think that I, a Libertarian, would agree with? Which economic theory do you think has a larger chance of corrupting influence bleeding from politicians to corporations and vice versa?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6647

I thought Friedman didn't believe in any intervention whatsoever? It's been a while since I studied economics in any depth tbh.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

ghettoperson wrote:

I thought Friedman didn't believe in any intervention whatsoever? It's been a while since I studied economics in any depth tbh.
Prosecution of fraud, theft, upholding contracts between parties etc. Basically Judicial intervention in the market. Hayek even went even further and didn't think the government should coin money either. He felt that we'd all be better off with competing currencies.



Hayek and Friedman believed in the free market observed by Adam Smith while Keynes believed in a hybrid free market/mercantilist economy. Mercantilism is what was replaced by free market economics. Protectionism is a synonym for mercantilism and is basically limited competition via government sponsored monopolies. All the people who talk of 'crony capitalism' and complaints about oligopolies should point their finger at Keynes and the politicians who follow his book for allowing it to come back into existence.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-27 11:41:31)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6808|Nårvei

And a triple-dip-recession will occur when the economic bubble of China bursts, maybe already this year ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5992|Truthistan

JohnG@lt wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

We need a little deflation to go with the deleveraging. The bubble has to come down. I would look for the market to go down to levels last seen around the start of the tech or dot com bubbles. You simply can't have all that excessive leverage coming out of the market and not expect deflation. the printing of money was used to replace all those rotten financial instruments, you could almost think of it as a dialysis for the market. bad blood out, good blood in, but the amount money in the system didn't really go up like people are thinking it did. M3 is decreasing because M3 includes tradeable financial instruments. And the reason why M3 is shrinking is that those toxic instruments are being taken off the books, and financial institutions are having to deleverage and that means that they have less money to put into more those paper instruments.

at worst the govt has devalued our currency in order to soften the deflationary blow and bought some time to permit financial institutions to adjust to the new reality.

The crash and the aftershocks we are experiencing were 30 years in the making. We've just corrected for the "no red tape" "we're open for business" folly of reaganomics.... Welcome back to 1980.
Eh, it's simply because banks are being forced to hold more cash on hand instead of being allowed to lend it out. Since our banks create money via fractional reserve banking practices, when they aren't lending, the amount of money in the system decreases.

Deflation is such a big no no in economics because it increases the costs of borrowing money and it increases a companies real costs in overhead and salaries. Marginal companies then go belly-up because they get hit from both sides.

As for the 'folly of reaganomic' I seem to remember him pulling the country out of the stagflation it experienced under Carter, but that's a different subject.

What we need now is a normalization of our monetary system. We need the Fed Reserve Rate jacked back up to normal levels and we need them to come down off Mount Olympus and stop thinking they can monkey with the economy without shiploads of unintended consequences. Bernanke sucks, Geitner sucks, they all need to go and be replaced with hard money Monetarists.
If you have a market that goes up, you have to permit it to come down at some point. I agree that the fed policy on inflation was a real problem. The govt has been under reporting inflation and they even stop reporting M3 data. Using that flawed inflation data, they obviously had a flawed interest policy, and that laid the basis for the financial bubble. I would say that the bubble was permitted to become so large that we are going to experience deflation, rather than recessionary contraction. I realize the deflation is not a great idea, but what is the solution, I don't think that skewing the economy so that marginal businesses can survive is the best bet, it would be throwing good money after bad. Perhaps these companies are only a live because of easy money generated in the bubble. Who knows?

Agree with you on the fractional reserve money supply comment. requiring larger bank reseves means less lending and a decrease in the money supply. tighter credit and more expensive borrowing. but the comparison shouldn't be with what was just permitted, but should be compared with a sane and reasonable level in what I assume you are calling a normalization of the monetary system.



As far as the folly of reaganomics.... well its goes without saying that he is the poster child for less regulation and less red tape. and although you could say it started with him, its the subsequent congresses and presidents that really screwed the pooch. The crash we see today is the result of less regulation and less red tape, because it was the mantra that red tape gets in the way of businesses ability to make profit. less red tape = more profit.... But then you get a huge crash and I call that folly.


                              ________________
                            (                            )   
                           (                               )
                          (         Reagonomics     )
                          (          1980-2010        )
                          (               RIP             )
                          (                                 )
                          (                                 )   
                              ________________              Should have happened 15 years ago with the dot.com bubble. We didn't learn our lesson     
                                                                        then but we sure should get the point now don't you thnk
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

Just because you don't understand most of what I post on this forum doesn't discredit me in the slightest. Your opinion on any subject is right up there with ruisleipa and rammunition; utterly insignificant.
Try answering the question, if you can - without parroting stuff from books.

Wait a minute, a year or so ago everyone was raging about all the money being printed and flooding into the economy, now they're raging about that same money being withdrawn from the economy?

Which is it?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-27 16:47:46)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Just because you don't understand most of what I post on this forum doesn't discredit me in the slightest. Your opinion on any subject is right up there with ruisleipa and rammunition; utterly insignificant.
Try answering the question, if you can - without parroting stuff from books.

Wait a minute, a year or so ago everyone was raging about all the money being printed and flooding into the economy, now they're raging about that same money being withdrawn from the economy?

Which is it?
Clearly the flood of money was misguided since it didn't have the intended effect. All the Fed has done is put off the bottoming out of the economy and protracted the recession. People have been saying this since Day 1 of the bailouts. Nothing has changed.

For historical basis, the Fed did the exact same thing after the crash in 1929 and contributed significantly to, if not wholly caused, the Depression.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-27 17:31:36)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England
In their 1963 book "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960", Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz laid out their case for a different explanation of the Great Depression. After the Depression, the primary explanations of it tended to ignore the importance of money. However, in the monetarist view, the Depression was “in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces.”[4]  In their view, the failure of the Federal Reserve to deal with the Depression was not a sign that monetary policy was impotent, but that the Federal Reserve exercised the wrong policies. They did not claim the Fed caused the depression, only that it failed to use policies that might have stopped a recession from turning into a depression.

Monetarist explanations were rejected in Samuelson's 1948 Economics, writing "Today few economists regard Federal Reserve monetary policy as a panacea for controlling the business cycle. Purely monetary factors are considered to be as much symptoms as causes, albeit symptoms with aggravating effects that should not be completely neglected."[5] However, the work of Friedman and Schwartz became dominant among mainstream economists by the 1980s, before being reconsidered by some in light of Japan's Lost Decade of the 1990s.[6] The role of monetary policy in financial crises is in active debate regarding the financial crisis of 2007–2010; see causes of the financial crisis of 2007–2009.

Ben Bernanke, the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve, agreed with Friedman in blaming the Federal Reserve for its role in the Great Depression, and stated on Nov. 8, 2002:

    "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." [7]
lawl

Before the 1913 establishment of the Federal Reserve, the banking system had dealt with periodic crises in the U.S. (such as in the Panic of 1907) by suspending the convertibility of deposits into currency. The system nearly collapsed in 1907 and there was an extraordinary intervention by an ad-hoc coalition assembled by J. P. Morgan. The bankers demanded in 1910-1913 a Federal Reserve to reduce this structural weakness. Friedman suggests the untested hypothesis that if a policy similar to 1907 had been followed during the banking panic at the end of 1930, perhaps this would have stopped the vicious circle of the forced liquidation of assets at depressed prices. Consequently, in his view, the banking panic of 1931, 1932, and 1933 might not have happened, just as suspension of convertibility in 1893 and 1907 had quickly ended the liquidity crises at the time.”[8] Essentially, the Great Depression, in the monetarist view, was caused by the fall of the money supply. Friedman and Schwartz write: "From the cyclical peak in August 1929 to a cyclical trough in March 1933, the stock of money fell by over a third." The result was what Friedman calls the "Great Contraction"— a period of falling income, prices, and employment caused by the choking effects of a restricted money supply. The mechanism suggested by Friedman and Schwartz was that people wanted to hold more money than the Federal Reserve was supplying. As a result people hoarded money by consuming less. This caused a contraction in employment and production since prices were not flexible enough to immediately fall. The Fed's failure was in not realizing what was happening and not taking corrective action.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_ … planations
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6520|...

good, if it weren't for the news there would be nothing to discuss
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6546|San Diego, CA, USA
I hear that the next jobs report will show +500,000 jobs.  Seems like a lot.  Lets hope there's some good news soon.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6546|San Diego, CA, USA
Its worst than I thought.  95% of the jobs last month were temporary government census-worker jobs:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-Stre … 3.html?x=0

via http://www.drudgereport.com/
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6150|what

Varegg wrote:

And a triple-dip-recession will occur when the economic bubble of China bursts, maybe already this year ...
And the Spanish/Greek debt crisis will affect the US also.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6546|San Diego, CA, USA
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … ns_opinion

https://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4012/76886843.gif

Wall Street Journal wrote:

Just remember what happened to auto sales when the cash for clunkers program ended. Or how about new housing sales when the $8,000 tax credit ended? It isn't rocket surgery, as the Ivy League professor said.

On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.

Tax rates have been and will be raised on income earned from off-shore investments. Payroll taxes are already scheduled to rise in 2013 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be digging deeper and deeper into middle-income taxpayers. And there's always the celebrated tax increase on Cadillac health care plans. State and local tax rates are also going up in 2011 as they did in 2010. Tax rate increases next year are everywhere.

Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.
Even if enough conservatives get into the House and Senate Obama would surely veto an extension of the Bush Tax cuts.

Things are not looking good right now.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX
.... and Reaganomics created colossal instability - not forgetting the huge expansion of the military, what shall we call that, Warcare? Workfight? Dole for Pushups?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6546|San Diego, CA, USA
It was rampant spending in social programs.  Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is not the problem.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6546|San Diego, CA, USA
Greenspan speaks...signs that the United States is following in Greece's footsteps!

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010- … eeded.html

via. http://www.drudgereport.com/

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard