Markets to be still flooded with money

The markets are still flooded with money and will continue to be flooded with money until it cant any longer, you can all disagree if you want to, but the next collapse is going to be significant, what bubble ben bernanke has done is irreversible at this point, all they are doing is flooding the market with cheap dollars to inflate everything possible, this can only last so long until it finally reverses and collapses.
 
That's why excess job growth requires tightening... and so does inflation...

So... high inflation -> tighten; excess job growth -> inflation -> tighten; low job growth -> expand.

Why is this not doable? (policy lag aside)

Quote from zdreg:

Quote from sjfan:

Job growth and price stability (in both directions).

Wait... why are 'dual mandate' in quotes? I can certainly understand that whether the Fed is able to meet their 'dual mandate', but are you implying that the dual mandate is not a legitimate goal for the Fed to achieve?
[/QUOTE

it is not doable because excess job growth is a political mandate which will cause inflation which in the intermediate to long run causes job losses. every 2 bit south american country has tried this road and failed.
 
Quote from sjfan:

That's why excess job growth requires tightening... and so does inflation...

So... high inflation -> tighten; excess job growth -> inflation -> tighten; low job growth -> expand.

Why is this not doable? (policy lag aside)

quality of created jobs deteriorates. Bad longterm. Skillset of workers is destroyed in this process - sack-hire. Cant produce high value items anymore.
 
It seems to me that it is the price CHANGES that are inversely correlated between the dollar and asset prices. It is not the low VALUE of the US dollar. This means that the dollar must continue to weaken for the markets to continue to rise. It's not like the dollar is dropping to some magic level where it will stop and markets will go along their merry ways..

If the dollar needs to weaken for the market to rise, this obviously can't go on indefinitely. The dollar can't go to zero. So the question becomes, how low can the dollar go before everything gets destabilized?

And it also seems to me that the Fed cares very much about what people think. Their job is to instill confidence and increase inflation expectations. They want people to think there is inflation so that they spend their money today instead of tomorrow. So if everyone is freaking out about golds parabolic rise, they care. It's just working in their favor. If they say there is inflation then they gotta raise rates. They keep saying no inflation, keep rates low, and people panic and buy things.


b



Quote from sjfan:

So what? Weak dollar isn't bad for the US; the Fed couldn't care less about the price of gold (nor should you, unless you have a gold position).
 
Huh? How is that the case? How does any of this follow from what I was talking about?

Quote from macroman:

quality of created jobs deteriorates. Bad longterm. Skillset of workers is destroyed in this process - sack-hire. Cant produce high value items anymore.
 
Quote from Visaria:

The initial impression was that no more QE after June. But, not quite! They are going to continue to reinvest both Treasuries and MBS, meaning the markets will still be awash with money:


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ury-buying-unlikely-to-have-major-impact.html


Bernanke spoke after the central bank today reiterated its view that surging commodity prices are likely to have a transitory effect on inflation and agreed to finish its program of large-scale asset purchases on schedule. In his press conference, Bernanke said the central bank is likely to continue reinvesting its securities holdings, including mortgage-backed securities, as they mature even after June.

“We are going to continue to reinvest maturing securities, both Treasuries and MBS, so the amount of securities that we hold will remain” approximately constant, he said. “The amount of monetary policy easing should remain constant going forward from June.”
Monetary Stimulus

When the Fed begins unwinding its record monetary stimulus, “it’s very likely that an early step would be to stop reinvesting all or part of the securities which are maturing,” he said. “That step, though a relatively modest step, does constitute a policy tightening,” Bernanke said.

there is a distinctive difference. most asset classes show correlation to a fed increasing it's balance sheet. what we're talking about here is a fed maintaining it's balance sheet at the same level. that isn't the same thing. i'm not saying the fed doesnt still have its collective head up it's ass, but a different effect could be seen.
 
Quote from sjfan:

Job growth and price stability (in both directions).

Wait... why are 'dual mandate' in quotes? I can certainly understand that whether the Fed is able to meet their 'dual mandate', but are you implying that the dual mandate is not a legitimate goal for the Fed to achieve?

no, it is not a legitimate goal for the fed to achieve. it is often in conflict with itself.
 
Clueless US Administration is destroying their $15 trillion domestic economy to counter $3 trillion Chinese foreign exchange reserves by devaluing/printing dollars.
 
Quote from sjfan:

That's why excess job growth requires tightening... and so does inflation...

So... high inflation -> tighten; excess job growth -> inflation -> tighten; low job growth -> expand.

Why is this not doable? (policy lag aside)

pray tell, what do you do when you have a situation like now - stagflationary environment represented by rising prices in all of the things we need, vs. falling prices in all of the things we own, and wages?

loosening policy exacerbates prices, and only drives the margin compression element of companies and reduces overall consumption of all but the most basic needs. this in turn lowers the capability of businesses and companies to employ and expand, and forces wages and compensation to be cut to meet breakeven. so a loosening of policy results in a de facto rise in unemployment while at the same time providing more cash into the system. the ease of more cash available as debt is great for companies to expand, but only in an environment where they have acceptable margins. but no one is about to expand with parabolic rises in raw goods and products that force them to actually cut back on expansion. so you've essentially got two forces countering each other on the employment front - the proverbial "pushing on a string" analogy - while prices get worse.

the dual mandate and the monetary model the fed uses is not applicable in an environment such as this. it is broken and must be adjusted.
 
Back
Top