Search results

No matter how much increased foreign participation there is now does not change the fact that the person I replied to was wrong -- the majority of our debt is not foreign owned and that fact is not going to change any time soon.

Not true. (I posted this on another thread as well -- why do so many people think this is the case?) The latest figures show that 75% of the national debt is owned by domestic entities with the Fed itself on the hook for 52%. Only 25% is foreign owned and that breaks down as; Japan 21%...

Completely agree with your take on the hyperinflationists paranoia. But, that's a separate issue from what the Fed has done recently with the types of assets that they've taken on in order to inject money into the system. Many of these assets that they now own have a decreasing probability...

Bullshit. Inflation exists for one reason; we have a debt-based monetary system. You need to inflate the money supply in order to pay back the principle plus interest. Deflation scares the crap out of the wealthy because they've leveraged their current wealth to accumulate more wealth.

Huh? Matched-sales drain the Fed's reserves. They're the reverse of a repurchase agreement, which is used to increase reserves.

Only happens if the US continues to print money after everyone else stop printing. Right now everyone's presses are running full-tilt, so it's a net wash.

Not even close. The latest figures show that 75% of the national debt is owned by domestic entities with the Fed itself on the hook for 52%. Only 25% is foreign owned and that breaks down as; Japan 21%, China 19%, UK 11%, OPEC nations 6%. Russia checks in at less than 3%...

How do you "sterilize" the shoddy collateral the Fed took in exchange for these "injections?" Does the Fed privatize the loss to the banks that own it, or does the taxpayer take it on the chin?

The way I understand it, the Fed can't print money until after the Treasury has printed more treasury notes/bonds. If anything, your solution is nothing more than a swap of current liabilities for future liabilities, plus interest. Nothing's fixed, only deferred. Help me out if I've...

My understanding of the classic definition of deflation means a contraction of both money supply and credit. We're not at that point (yet) if that's correct.

It all depends on where you're at on the wealth spectrum as to which one sucks.

There's no basis for that when stocks that weren't part of the ban dropped as much or more then the financials did. Once the institutional numbers start coming in for Q2 it's a good bet that they will support the theory that the market was hammered by massive margin calls and fund...

No, it only reduces the wealth of those that hold the same asset class. RE doesn't affect gold, etc.

Realizing a profit has nothing to do with wealth evaporation. Once you realize a profit you're out of the picture, your wealth is unaffected by current market conditions, assuming you've not used that profit as collateral for another home. Being underwater, which is an unrealized loss, has...

No, it's debt-based money. You "create" the money via a journal entry. There's a very real debit that's created when the loan is made and the principle and interest has to be repaid to remove that entry. That's also why the money "disappears" after the debt has been paid. The rub is...

It also depends on what that something was. Was it a hard asset? Does the asset have the potential to appreciate or will it only depreciate to zero? Was it a consumable or a service? I presume you're referring to the talking heads on the idiot box. It's infuriating to hear them talk that...

BSC and LEH???

You're making a case for a major bottom, which is pretty much the same as making a prediction. News is irrelevant when it comes to price swings within a trading range, regardless of your timeframe, which could be minutes, days, weeks, months or years long. IMHO, I subscribe to the theory...

One day doesn't make a trend. Confirmation didn't happen until 2/75 when it took out the 11/74 high. Don't you think it's prudent to wait and see how the markets digest Obama's first 100 days in office?

What's best about this market is that it gives us a ringside seat watching the two most biased chuckleheads, SA and STurd, alternate between orgasm and aneurysm with each swing.