Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Cullen Roche  

View Cullen Roche's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Finding Religion On 'Crowding Out' [View article]
    Sleek,

    The money the govt spends is redistributed from the banking sector. When the govt borrows funds it is taking deposits from the lender and redistributing them to someone else. It is not "destroying" and "creating" new funds as MMT asserts. The US Treasury is a user of the US banking system just like other banks are. MMT misconstrues the reserve system as though it's where all of the "money" is created and destroyed. But this is operationally wrong. The govt does not "create" money when it spends. It redistributes money.

    You should look at all of this from the perspective of a one bank system. If there was only one bank in the system there would be no need for the reserve system because there would be no interbank system. And if that were the case then it would be obvious that the govt just redistributes bank inside money.

    MMT gets this description wrong by misconstruing the purpose of the reserve system.
    Apr 22, 2015. 03:14 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Finding Religion On 'Crowding Out' [View article]
    Lake,

    The point is that deficits can have a huge impact on the economy. The govt is a huge spender and its decisions on how it allocates this spending will most certainly impact the economy. But the US govt isn't going to run out of its ability to "finance" the deficit in financial terms. It could, however, cause very high inflation or a currency crisis through its deficit decisions. This means deficits matter, but they don't matter like most people seem to think.

    I hope that clarifies.

    Cullen
    Apr 22, 2015. 03:08 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Finding Religion On 'Crowding Out' [View article]
    NO
    Apr 21, 2015. 09:17 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Finding Religion On 'Crowding Out' [View article]
    Lawrence,

    I think it helps to make a distinction here. The traditional crowding out argument says that the government's deficit will compete with a scarce supply of funds which will drive up the cost of money. This is obviously false in an endogenous money system because the supply of money is not some fixed quantity.

    This does not mean, however, that the govt does not compete with the private sector or that they don't compete for scarce resources. The distinction is important in my opinion.

    I hope that helps.
    Apr 21, 2015. 05:39 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Finding Religion On 'Crowding Out' [View article]
    Hi Sleek,

    I wouldn't say that the govt deficit is "self financing". Any liability issuer must find willing holders of its liabilities. So, one can say that you "fund" the asset side of a balance sheet by finding willing holders of the liability side of the balance sheet. This is basically how banking works. When you want to take out a loan you must find a bank that is willing to hold your debt. If you find a bank will hold your liabilities then you've funded the asset side of your balance sheet. Of course, this shouldn't be confused with the money multiplier concept in which a bank must have PRIOR assets to fund its liabilities....I hope that all makes sense.

    A govt is not immune from this reality. A govt must always "fund" its assets by finding willing holders of its liabilities. And no, a central bank is not always a sufficient willing holder. After all, the Central Bank is like the wife to the Treasury. And I am not "solvent" simply because my wife is willing to take on endless liabilities from me....

    I have a feeling you're working from the MMT methodology. I do not believe their views are correct. Hopefully my explanation helps add some clarity there.
    Apr 21, 2015. 05:35 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Human Innovation Is Winning The Race Against Scarce Resources [View article]
    There's a desalination plant off the coast of San Diego that is going to be "printing" fresh water by the end of 2015. :-)
    Apr 18, 2015. 10:28 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Human Innovation Is Winning The Race Against Scarce Resources [View article]
    It's always different this time. And yes, technology will always make it different in the future. People who are focused on the petroleum based economy are thinking in the past....
    Apr 16, 2015. 01:57 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Human Innovation Is Winning The Race Against Scarce Resources [View article]
    I think we can all agree that lugging around gold bars isn't a very sensible way to use money. So, as long as we're going to use financial instruments as money then we better get used to the reality that credit IS money. That is, money is always created as a result of simple accounting entries that include someone's asset as well as someone's liability. The outcry over money as "debt" misunderstands that money is also someone's asset. Whether this is good or bad has nothing to do with accounting and everything to do with how money is utilized for the purposes of improving living standards....
    Apr 16, 2015. 01:53 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Human Innovation Is Winning The Race Against Scarce Resources [View article]
    We had 6 depressions in the 1800's during the period where people regularly cite the "prosperity" of the gold standard. Is that really prosperity? Or is it high growth inside of incredible turbulence? Personally, I'll take the lower growth period with fewer crises. The fiat system has actually proven far more stable than the gold standard eras....That's real progress if you ask me.
    Apr 16, 2015. 01:50 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Mainstream Economics Is Flawed And That's Fine [View article]
    Hi Carlson,

    I am certainly not saying that I think it's okay for economics to misrepresent reality. In fact, that is the biggest problem with modern economics. My hope is that this can be improved on rather than persistent calls to start from scratch.

    Best,

    Cullen
    Apr 16, 2015. 01:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Active Passive Debate Evolves By Necessity [View article]
    Hi Roger. Been reading your stuff for as long as I can remember. Big fan. Thanks for all you do.

    Cullen
    Mar 25, 2015. 10:54 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Active Passive Debate Evolves By Necessity [View article]
    Roger, Good piece.

    Varan,

    I don't think you've understood the point I was making in my comments on passive vs active. This is very important to understand for several reasons:

    1. A growing trend in asset management is the use of the term "passive indexing" (which is little more than a marketing term) to promote approaches that are supposedly superior to "active" management. So we're seeing more and more money managers and advisors claiming to be "passive" and then charging a high fee (upwards of 2% or more) for a "passive" portfolio based on the sales pitch that passive is necessarily better than active. This is highly misleading. A manager or advisor who picks a passive asset allocation might be smarter than a high fee closet index fund, but this doesn't mean they're not making active choices that could have high costs. More importantly, they're essentially selling a high fee version of passive indexing which totally misses one of the key points about indexing to begin with - it should be low fee.

    2. Passive indexing is sold as something that is necessarily smarter than active investing. But the reality is that we are all active investors to some degree. Passive indexers aren't necessarily smarter or better at choosing their asset allocations. They just do so in a tax and fee efficient manner. But at the end of the day we all end up making consistently active decisions in our portfolios even if we just choose to pick the S&P 500 and hold it for long periods of time. This is a very active deviation from global cap weighting and is nothing more than a more diversified version of active stock picking than what someone like Warren Buffett does. But buying and holding the S&P 500 is only as smart as the future performance of that index. Whether this will end up being smarter than owning a total world stock index is based on your ability to "pick" which assets will perform better. Indexers are all "asset pickers" which is part of what makes the active vs passive debate rather boring in a world where we are all becoming index pickers as opposed to stock pickers.

    3. Politically, this is hugely important. Passive indexing is a derivative of the efficient market hypothesis. The basic premise being that discretionary intervention in the markets is misguided. But once you understand that we are all necessarily active to some degree when we deviate from global cap weighting then this point loses its significance. But this doesn't stop people like Eugene Fama and other politically motivated theorists from arguing that this "active" vs "passive" debate proves EMH correct or proves that discretionary intervention is misguided.

    The fact that more active investors underperform a pre-fee and pre-tax index is not proof of EMH. It is just math. In the aggregate we all generate the post-fee and post-tax return. The more active you are the higher your taxes and fees are and the higher the likelihood that you will underperform a lower fee and lower tax approach. This doesn't say anything about aggregate "skill" in asset picking. It is just math. Yet we continually see investment "professionals" using this strawman argument to sell their idea of "passive indexing" and promote an anti interventionist agenda. When applied to the political spectrum this thinking is not only factually wrong, but it is disingenuous.

    I hope that clarifies my reasoning for focusing on this discussion.

    Thanks for hearing me out.
    Mar 24, 2015. 12:35 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Things I Think I Think - Dollar Contagion And Dumb Markets [View article]
    Au contraire bon jour!!

    The fact that index funds beat more active managers does NOT prove that the market is "efficient". An index is a pre-tax and pre-fee benchmark. IT WILL BEAT EVERYONE GIVEN A LONG ENOUGH TIME FRAME. This isn't "proof" of anything. It is just math. In the aggregate we all generate the post-tax and post-fee return of the global financial asset portfolio. EMH defenders use this as "evidence" that "active" management is bad and that EMH is right, but it doesn't prove that at all. In fact, an index is nothing more than a discretionary compilation of human picked assets. They are every bit as "active" as many mutual funds. They just charge lower fees and are more tax efficient so they beat higher fee funds on average. So what? That doesn't prove anything.

    EMH is anti-government and anti discretionary intervention. Very consistent with the Chicago School from whence it came....And largely based on political nonsense.
    Mar 18, 2015. 11:12 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Things I Think I Think - Dollar Contagion And Dumb Markets [View article]
    Bad joke on my part. Nerd humor I guess. :-)
    Mar 18, 2015. 11:07 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Voluntary Or Involuntary Unemployment? Who Cares If We Get The Solution Wrong! [View article]
    Tax cuts are great. Government spending or tax cuts essentially do the same thing - they raise the deficit which adds to non-govt saving. Reagan massively expanded real govt consumption and investment in addition to cutting taxes. He ran huge budget deficits which is part of why the economy did so well under his terms.
    Mar 9, 2015. 01:01 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
302 Comments
674 Likes