Greenspan the Master.

Quote from BVM88:

Sure, without the gold standard a loss in purchasing power is almost assured because the government and the Fed, being the first to spend the newly created money, benefit most from debasement. Savers as you would expect are the ones that are hurt the most by the process, but in the US most people have woken up to it in some respects, so they no longer save. Greenspan put it beautifully in 1966: “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold.”

The government and the Fed focus entirely on their BS inflation numbers, but the money supply, being the most accurate measure of inflation is of no concern to them. I had a quick look at one of Bernanke’s papers on inflation recently and saw a well written speech with the most intricate, and useless, analysis of the BS inflation statistics, but no reference to money supply growth. They just do not want us to know about the money supply and that is why they are doing away with the M3 statistic. So much for the transparency of the Fed under Bernanke.

As long as the newly created money ends up in real-estate or stocks, they are content, but once it ends up in the prices of goods they blame everyone but themselves for it. When that happens they often impose wage and price controls such as Nixon, or in the distant past as in the case of the Roman emperor, Diocletian, who debased his coins with copper, the death penalty on any merchant who puts up prices.
More...

someone needed to buy bernanke a book on the austrians school of economics for xmas
 
Quote from flyingiguana:

someone needed to buy bernanke a book on the austrians school of economics for xmas
More...

I think he has looked at that school of economics and rejected it. He has also looked at money supply growth and replaced it with his notions on inflation targeting, which is a term I find amusing. He appears to only take money supply into account if it is falling, which will never happen for long if at all under him because he has access to a printing press.
In all honesty though, I don’t envy his position at all and hope that things work out for him and for the rest of us at the end of the day.
 
Quote from BVM88:

I think he has looked at that school of economics and rejected it. He has also looked at money supply growth and replaced it with his notions on inflation targeting, which is a term I find amusing. He appears to only take money supply into account if it is falling, which will never happen for long if at all under him because he has access to a printing press.
In all honesty though, I don’t envy his position at all and hope that things work out for him and for the rest of us at the end of the day.
More...

bernanke is the reason why college profs should stick to writing textbooks...
 
I am not a great economist, but i believe we are headed for trouble.

Greenspan is for the people.

Bernake will be a puppet of Mr. Bush.


Why do you think Bush does not like Greenspan?


I am not sure exactly how everything will play out? One thing for sure!! It is going to get ugly, real ugly. I just hope it happens when Bush is still president. I think far to much damage has been done that they will not be able to mask it for much longer.

Things cold get worse then 1929. And as for the US people, they just keep spending and accumulating debt. They don't care about rate hikes, just buy me that house and home theatre system.

As I beleive it is Greenspan who once said, "Avoid painfull forced awareness, accept reality now".

In my opininon, things are going to get real ugly. I think we are headed to the worst times in US history. Much worse then 1929.

It will be interesting to see what happens when that loaf of bread costs 135$

The question is if you believe doom and gloom is coming?

What do we do about it and where do we invest now?

Gold?

How many gold pieces for that loaf of bread?

:)
 
The Bush family has a problem with Greenspan due to the fact that he did not cut interest rates during George (Daddy) Bush's administration and cost him the election. Remember, "It's the economy, stupid" line? Well, the Bush's attribute that directly to ole Al Greenspan.

As far as gloom and doom, it's been a losing bet for a long time. During that time we have seen an energy crisis like no other, had major markets come under direct terrorist attack, fought 5 wars (currently engaged in the fifth) as well as engaged in a couple of police actions/conflicts (Panama, Granada, Haiti), seen government big spending come and go and come again, bailed out segments of our banking system (S&L crisis), seen the fall of major world political regimes (Soviet Union), witnessed social revolutions and countless other events such as embassies being taken over.

Now if our economy and country has witnessed and weathered all these thing plus much more not mentioned, why is now so much worse? Buy gold, a depleting asset that has not even kept up with inflation, or bet on the free markets with the limitless potential of human thinking and innovation as its driving force. The only hitch is, we HAVE TO KEEP THE MARKETS FREE as well as its participants. We must continue to be the beacon of innovation and business development. We don't need excessive regulation or taxation, we need conditions that attract investment and capital as well as let it grow. capital migrates to where it is welcomed and those economies that welcome it grow and prosper. Economic growth is the remedy, I just wonder why so many people don't want to give it the breathing room it requires.

Alan Greenspan has been an adequate market shepherd. The jury is out on Bernake.
 
Good post. One thing I would add, however. In the past, there really weren't too many markets where investment was attractive and safe (because of political concerns). That is changing. No longer is the US the only place to go for parking capital. Now people look to Asia, Eastern Europe, and even South America. The US is no longer the only shop in town. That might just put a little sting in any other calamaties we face.
 
Quote from Ivanovich:

Good post. One thing I would add, however. In the past, there really weren't too many markets where investment was attractive and safe (because of political concerns). That is changing. No longer is the US the only place to go for parking capital. Now people look to Asia, Eastern Europe, and even South America. The US is no longer the only shop in town. That might just put a little sting in any other calamaties we face.
More...

I couldn't agree more. The globalization of market mentality is taking hold and all the more reason the U.S. needs to stay sharp and vigilent. I personally belive the U.S. has the "safest" markets (debatable due to corporate scandals, but they were flushed out), but definitly do agree that there are MANY other places that welcome capital investment and reward it well. I have commented about Eastern Europe before and agree it is a place to watch and speculate right now.
 
The master??

More like the master of disaster. He's left behind a huge mess for Bernanke and future FED chiefs to clean up.

The average family is just BARELY, barely, making it right now.
If it wasn't for this massive credit bubble, you know we'd be a in very deep recession by now.

The real saviors have been the Chinese, Japanese and other foreign central banks that have financed our boom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top