And you know this how? As I have said a number of times, it's very easy to say that things should have been allowed to run their natural course if you don't properly understand the downside.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Credit Crisis Financial Stocks Short Journal
- Thread starter Daal
- Start date
Quote from Martinghoul:
And you know this how? As I have said a number of times, it's very easy to say that things should have been allowed to run their natural course if you don't properly understand the downside.
History. For the first 150 years in the U.S., we didn't respond to panics by insane amounts of stimulus, rate cuts, bailouts, nationalization, etc. Nor did Asia in the late 1990s. Sure, we're in a different situation now because weâve tried to mask over problems and havenât allowed things to fail that should have. But what weâre doing is akin to giving an athlete mega-doses of pain killers, steroids, amphetamines, etc. It âworksâ for a little while, but is worse in the long term.
Actually, though, the burden of proof is on those who cried âChicken Little.â Iâm sure there would have been some panic and painful times to reset/renew the system, but how do we know Bernanke & Co. were right? Are we supposed to believe the same ones who said âthe worst is overâ in the summer of 2007? They have a horrid track record at predictions.
Well, again we're arguing counterfactuals, which, basically, means we could in theory go back 'n forth in the same vein endlessly. However, let me just point out that there have been cases where not responding to panics ended rather sadly for lots of people involved.
So the dilemma for policy makers is, basically, that of a russian roulette player. The probability of blowing your brains out is very low, but it ain't zero. If you were them, would you play or would you put the gun away?
So the dilemma for policy makers is, basically, that of a russian roulette player. The probability of blowing your brains out is very low, but it ain't zero. If you were them, would you play or would you put the gun away?
I dont know if the Fed reverse Repos are scheduled or not but if they are not it seems to be that the latest one(which was a bit large) was made in response to the rising inflation expectations to show the market 'daddys is here, we have all exit tools available at any time'
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fe...reverse-repo-stocks-predictably-turn-negative
This could confirm that this sudden surge in expectations caught the Fed a bit off guard and as a result the program announced on Nov 03 will disappoint in terms of size
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fe...reverse-repo-stocks-predictably-turn-negative
This could confirm that this sudden surge in expectations caught the Fed a bit off guard and as a result the program announced on Nov 03 will disappoint in terms of size
They are scheduled and this just goes to show what utter eeejits ZeroHedge are.
Hussman claims QE wont be effective because monetary policy is impotent due the zero bound
http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc101025.htm
I believe he couldn't be more wrong. He is looking at the wrong data, instead of monetary base he needs to look at M2
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/05/m2_and_inflatio.html
If one doubts the fed can be effective in boosting nominal incomes and prices just image what would happen in a massive helicopter drop of cash scenario. Its just not plausible that people would decrease their spending by proportionally same exact amount that was printed. And the fed can easily create a helicopter scenario by large purchase of assets from primary dealers
http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc101025.htm
I believe he couldn't be more wrong. He is looking at the wrong data, instead of monetary base he needs to look at M2
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/05/m2_and_inflatio.html
If one doubts the fed can be effective in boosting nominal incomes and prices just image what would happen in a massive helicopter drop of cash scenario. Its just not plausible that people would decrease their spending by proportionally same exact amount that was printed. And the fed can easily create a helicopter scenario by large purchase of assets from primary dealers
Its working. Moves in the last 10 weeks ...
* Cotton +48%
* Sugar +48%
* Soybeans +20%
* Rice +27%
* Coffee +18%
* Oats +22%
* Copper +17%
This doesn't include oil (gas is about to hit $3/gallon in my area again), precious metals, or stocks which have all moonshot as well. The dollar has cratered.
Has one net job been created? Yes, if you work in the mines or the fields in Australia. Yes, if you build stuff in Asia. Yes, if you work for the Federal Gov't in the USA (Washington, D.C. is booming like it never has). For everyone else in the US, no jobs, but higher prices for everything on your grocery list, gas at the pump, and heating oil for the winter.
* Cotton +48%
* Sugar +48%
* Soybeans +20%
* Rice +27%
* Coffee +18%
* Oats +22%
* Copper +17%
This doesn't include oil (gas is about to hit $3/gallon in my area again), precious metals, or stocks which have all moonshot as well. The dollar has cratered.
Has one net job been created? Yes, if you work in the mines or the fields in Australia. Yes, if you build stuff in Asia. Yes, if you work for the Federal Gov't in the USA (Washington, D.C. is booming like it never has). For everyone else in the US, no jobs, but higher prices for everything on your grocery list, gas at the pump, and heating oil for the winter.
I asked Scott Sumner about the Hussman column. Here's his reply
" I don'thave any problem with the base, it's that he doesn't know how to analyze the data he has. The Fed's been doing something close to NGDP targeting from 1983-2008--so it's no surprise that M and V are negatively correlated. That piece is just warmed-over 1930s Keynesianism.
Scott"
What he means is that the Fed tends to offset drops in velocity with higher monetary base and vice-versa(At least they did that till in 2008 a massive drop in velocity was not followed by agressive enough QE, so nominal GDP fell for the first time since the 30's I believe). I tend to agree with that, as I had said its simply not credible that people would know exactly how much to decrease in spending as the Fed raised the base or money supply. Most people dont even know what is going on with the money supply
" I don'thave any problem with the base, it's that he doesn't know how to analyze the data he has. The Fed's been doing something close to NGDP targeting from 1983-2008--so it's no surprise that M and V are negatively correlated. That piece is just warmed-over 1930s Keynesianism.
Scott"
What he means is that the Fed tends to offset drops in velocity with higher monetary base and vice-versa(At least they did that till in 2008 a massive drop in velocity was not followed by agressive enough QE, so nominal GDP fell for the first time since the 30's I believe). I tend to agree with that, as I had said its simply not credible that people would know exactly how much to decrease in spending as the Fed raised the base or money supply. Most people dont even know what is going on with the money supply
Looks like home prices might be resuming their decline. This could be the thing that tips the economy into a double dip and get banks to get hurt again. I'm suspecting there will be a 5-10% decline from the recent highs due the shadow inventories. I find Hatzius explanation that affordability might hold prices insufficient given that historically bubbles tend to overshoot to the downside and affordability depends on credit as well(And where are in a delevering cycle where both supply and demand for credit will be weak for years)
Quote from Daal:
Hussman claims QE wont be effective because monetary policy is impotent due the zero bound
http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc101025.htm
I believe he couldn't be more wrong. He is looking at the wrong data, instead of monetary base he needs to look at M2
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/05/m2_and_inflatio.html
If one doubts the fed can be effective in boosting nominal incomes and prices just image what would happen in a massive helicopter drop of cash scenario. Its just not plausible that people would decrease their spending by proportionally same exact amount that was printed. And the fed can easily create a helicopter scenario by large purchase of assets from primary dealers
This is laughable--like watching a junior high tennis coach critique Federer's game.
Long-term, QE has never worked anywhere.