Best Santelli Rant in a while..

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Alright, sounds good. Post the poll there. We'll do it there, first.
No one knows you there, and if they did you'd be banned. It's normal people there, not cranks.
 
Quote from Ricter:

No one knows you there, and if they did you'd be banned. It's normal people there, not cranks.

Ah, so you're saying we can't do it there, because everyone is an asshat. Gotcha. Why'd you waste time suggesting it, then? I guess we'll have to do it here!
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

Ah, so you're saying we can't do it there, because everyone is an asshat. Gotcha. Why'd you waste time suggesting it, then? I guess we'll have to do it here!
You and I both know your views are marginal. Which is why you think they must be right. The very definition of a crank.
 
Quote from Ricter:

You and I both know your views are marginal. Which is why you think they must be right. The very definition of a crank.

I've got plenty of posts where I admit I was mistaken. You?
 
Quote from pspr:

And, his comment that goes with the chart

As a reminder: jobs have quantity and quality components. The quantity component was good enough to convince the 10 Year the taper is imminent (if not stocks, which continue to trade dislocated from any and all fundamentals). But how about the quality? In a word: not good. In June, the household survey reported that part-time jobs soared by 360,000 to 28,059,000 - an all time record high. Full time jobs? Down 240,000. And looking back at the entire year, so far in 2013, just 130K Full-Time Jobs have been added, offset by a whopping 557K Part-Time jobs. And there is your jobs "quality" leading to today's market euphoria (if only for now).

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...ge-all-time-high-full-time-jobs-plunge-240000
Those are very disturbing numbers! It isn't within the Fed's capability to affect this balance between full and part time employment to much extent. The Fed can provide stimulus and prevent deflation, and that does help increase employment, but how the money pumped into the economy is allocated is critical. This is as much, or more, under control of Congress as it is the Fed. The Fed can do their job well; yet without a cooperative Congress that pulls in a direction consistent with Fed initiatives, money pumped into the economy may flow eventually into hands that will perpetuate past economic defects.

I am extremely concerned that those in the labor class are being shut out of opportunity, no matter how hard they work, to move to capital; opportunity that was there in the 1950-70 period. You can't expect anyone to work hard to better their lot if there is no incentive. There is no incentive without opportunity.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Those are very disturbing numbers! It isn't within the Fed's capability to affect this balance between full and part time employment to much extent. The Fed can provide stimulus and prevent deflation, and that does help increase employment, but how the money pumped into the economy is allocated is critical. This is as much, or more, under control of Congress as it is the Fed. The Fed can do their job well; yet without a cooperative Congress that pulls in a direction consistent with Fed initiatives, money pumped into the economy may flow eventually into hands that will perpetuate past economic defects.

I am extremely concerned that those in the labor class are being shut out of opportunity, no matter how hard they work, to move to capital; opportunity that was there in the 1950-70 period. You can't expect anyone to work hard to better their lot if there is no incentive. There is no incentive without opportunity.
The point isn't that the Fed can correct this problem. The point is that economic policy is continuing to cause economic distress. The Fed can only react to try to keep economic activity of some sort moving by continuing to increase liquidity until they can see the economy improve so QE isn't required to keep us from falling into the abyss.

I would just as soon let the fall occur so that the troubling policies that are root cause of the weak economy can be corrected both in the markets and in the government. The longer the Fed artificially postpones the inevitable the worse it is likely to be.

I don't see the Obama Admin or Congress making any attempt to correct the problems they have created so long as the Fed keeps things just floating along. A crisis will make them act. The fear is that they will react with stimulus instead of policy change. That would be a mistake of monstrous proportions. And, that risk is great while Obama and Reid are running the show.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

I've got plenty of posts where I admit I was mistaken. You?
I have you for that.

But for this time, perhaps I'm wrong about crank.

Maybe it's kook.

; )
 
Quote from Ricter:

I have you for that.

But for this time, perhaps I'm wrong about crank.

Maybe it's kook.

; )

I prefer kook. It has that "get off my lawn you damned kids" type feel to it. Though for some reason that reminds me more of Scat.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:
The only "dispute" here is that you believed QE1, 2 and Twist worked, whereas I did not. Not sure what would settle that dispute other than a debate about it, and likely you wouldn't give ground on that no matter what was shown. So that's out.
Let's be accurate here, shall we? At no point during our conversation, do I recall making a statement that QE1, 2 and Twist worked. I said that I believed that they were warranted by the economic backdrop, which is a bit different.
The only other thing I asked was why you changed your tune on QE3, and you claimed that previous versions of QE were warranted by the economic backdrop. Therefore (and these are my words) the current economic backdrop must have improved markedly to no longer warrant QE, ipso facto.

So I'm asking you what has improved, and you simply haven't given me anything that has improved. Even the Fed would, it seem, disagree with you that the economy has improved, for they continue with QE in the belief the economy needs it. Therein lies my problem.
I have given you things that have, in fact, improved. The charts that you have commented on in the CR article don't just talk about the "extrapolated bright future". The extrapolations are in fact based on the data, which the charts summarize. Specifically:
- Total housing starts, seasonally adj ann rate: Jan12 - 723k, Dec12 - 983k
- Local and state govt employment: Jan12 - 18.979mil, Dec12 - 19.185mil
- US budget deficit: 2012 - $1089bn, 2013 (CBO estimate) - $642bn
- Total household debt balance: 2012 Q1 - $11.44trn; 2013 Q1 - $11.23trn
- Household debt svc ratio: 2102 Q1 - 10.78%, 2013 Q1 - 10.49%

Now you may choose to regard the above as insignificant or transitory. That judgment is subjective. However, one thing for sure. All of the above unequivocally constitute improvements.
I never agreed that QE was the right path - simply because the risks are too great of future imbalances, and it only rewards the rich through asset appreciation (markets, etc). You agreed with the Fed and QE because you agreed their economic view of the economy warranted such unusual efforts, yet now you don't, even though the Fed does.
Indeed, you have summarized my view correctly.

Now here's my question to you. Given the state of the US economy during 2008 and, subsequently, in 2010, 2011 and 2012, what would you have done, given how you feel about QE?
 
Back
Top