U.S. Employment: The Fed And Stimulus Hasn't Helped [View article]
What proof do you have that the stimulus created jobs? Other than the politicians who want to get reelected claim that it did and you believe them (do they employ you as well or are you just an official of the Democratic party?). Your excuse that Obama took office after a major financial crisis is irrelevant. The article specifically states what happened after Obama took office. There has been only a 2000 net increase in jobs since that time (there are over 300,000,000 people in the U.S.). Those are the government's own figures.
As for your point about whether or not it was worth incurring yearly budget deficits aroundf $1.3 trillion for four years to get 2000 net jobs, I would say that everyone can figure that one out.
You are the one that needs to produce a set of numbers to justify your unsubstantiated claims -- "of course the stimulus created jobs". Really? Tell it to the unemployed. You are also the one engaging in political propaganda or is the correct term a misinformation campaign?
Presumably Mario Draghi will lay out details of the ECB bond purchase plan tomorrow, but what will the bank do if EU states fail to live up to their pledges (like Greece)? Any threat to halt purchases (or even to sell) would carry little weight as the central bank would be too far in at that point. What follows could be a German nightmare - the ECB financing governments who no longer feel the need to reform. [View news story]
This is ridiculous. First of all, the bailout countries will need constant bond buying or their interest rates will soar to the stratosphere. So they will behave or else. Secondly, if there is no money printing, that money is coming out of someone's pocket. And that someone is the strong fiscal states in the EU. They will be paying with much higher interest rates. And this will damage their economies. Once they figures this out, I think that will be the end of Draghi's Plan B.
12 Reasons This Bull Market Has Legs (Part 1) [View article]
No, stock prices do NOT ultimately follow earnings. They follow liquidity. Otherwise the market P/E would be stable over time. Instead sometimes it's 7 and sometimes its 22.
As for the Fed and more QE, you can't print your way to prosperity. QE is good for boosting the market, but like all addictions it takes more and more to achieve the same effect over time and eventually it is needed just to maintain the status quo.
If Bernanke started QE3 at the September meeting, it would be followed by a political firestorm and would become a major issue in the presidential campaign. Does the Fed want a lot of media scrutiny into its actions? I highly doubt that.
The Fed was also supposed to be announcing QE3 in June (big news story with Goldman Sachs chief economist as source), in July/August (front page of Wall Street Journal), at Jackson Hole and NOW it will be in September. Let's consider that it's just trying to keep the market up until the election and never had any intention of doing QE before November or perhaps even then (one day it will because the economy has become dependent on printed money).
Ben Bernanke Channels The Dalai Lama [View article]
There's a key takeaway from the speech that you have totally ignored: "estimates of the effects of nontraditional policies on economic activity and inflation are uncertain". In other words, the Fed doesn't have the slightest idea of the unintended consequences of its actions.
The Fed also admitted that its money-printing backed bond buying could seriously damage the functioning of the Treasury market.
The Fed has also said dozens of times that it will do everything to support the market. What is it going to say? No, we will just sit on our hands and continue to screw up? This is not news.
As for the Fed being confident of its ability to handle the situation. Bernanke was also confident in the spring of 2007 that the mountain of subprime mortgages that existed wouldn't cause any problem for the economy or the markets. (his forecasting record isn't exactly sterling).
And no there is not going to be any QE in September, just as there was none at the June meeting, none at the July/August meeting and none in the speech at Jackson Hole. The Fed is just stringing the market along to try to try to keep it up until the election.
John Hilsenrath also was the source of the Wall Street Journal article that said the Fed was going to do QE at the July/August meeting. He was wrong about that (before that the Fed was supposed to be doing QE3 at the June meeting). And he will be just as wrong about them doing it at the September meeting. It would be considered a blatantly political act to try to help elect Obama (Romney said he is going to dump Bernanke) and he would be attacked as being partisan. The "independent" Fed image would be destroyed forever. They are not going to take that risk.
"(Bernanke) left little doubt that he is looking toward doing more to give the economy a lift at the Fed's next policy meeting in September," is Fed-whisperer Jon Hilsenrath's interpretation of The Chairman's speech (perhaps assisted by some off-the-record comments?). The focus on the economy's weakness not being structural is key, says Hilsenrath, for if it's not structural then the Fed can do something about it. Stocks move to session highs. [View news story]
John Hilsenrath was also the source for the front page Wall Street Journal article that the Fed was going to do QE at its July/August meeting. That didn't happen. And guess what? It's not going to happen at the September meeting either. There was also supposed to be QE at the June meeting. That turned up empty also. The same story over and over and over again. How many times will the public accept these lies?
If Bernanke tried QE now before the election, the Republicans would jump all over him for trying to help get Obama relected (Romney has already said more than once he's going to dump Bernanke). The image of the supposedly independent Fed would be blown sky high.
Don Coxe Recommends Investors Read Lenin To Understand The Markets [View article]
Gold is indeed a good investment, but ultimately silver will prove to be a better one. Other key inflation investments: energy, agriculture, and art, antiques and collectibles.
As for the triple dip recession, indeed it may not be the case because there has been one long single recession. The U.S. economic numbers are maniupulated in a number of ways to make them look much better than they actually are. Even if you do believe them (and you shouldn't), why should anything that comes from money printing be considered to be real economic growth?
As for Lenin, he also had the idea that destroying the value of the currency was the key to Communism's success. Hyperinflation was purposely created in the early days in post-Czarist Russia so everyone would be impoverished and they would then be dependent on the state. You should see echoes of this today in our current politics. Investors should be paying attention to that.
The biggest one is that empirical observation (ex. reality) contradicts it. Zimbabwe which had the 2nd highest inflation rate in history had a 94% unemployment rate. Yes, almost no one in the entire country had a job. According to you and the Fed Zimbabwe couldn't possibly have had inflation, but it did. And Zimbabwe is not an isolated example. Hyperinflation and very high unemployment go hand in hand.
And in case you think well that can happen in some foreign country, but not in America, consider that there was a severe recession between 1973 and 1975 in the U.S. - the worst since the 1930s Depression. What happened to the inflation rate? It zoomed.
Your other idea about prices would be valid if the "money supply" was flat and not increasing, but that's not the case.
"The reality is that inflation is very low and declining." No, the reality is that the U.S government reports numbers that indicate that inflation is low and declining. Governments however can and do lie (it is a requirement to be a politician after all). Go check actual price changes between 2009 and 2011/12 and you will see there have been a number of very large increases (presumably you never go shopping).
"Financial markets find the Fed quite credible". So when the Fed prints money, uses it to buy Treasuries creating artifical demand that drives interest rates down, this indicates market credibility. I think it indicates market manipulation.
Oh really? What about all the Eastern European hyperinflations in the 1990s and early 2000s? Yugoslavia had the 2nd biggest hyperinflation in in history in the 1990s until Zimbabwe knocked it down to third place. Greece also experienced hyperinflation at the end of World War II as did China. Hungary had the largest hyperinflation in history at that time.
Hyperinflation has existed on every inhabited continent except Australia.
Only 29 cases of hyperinflation in the last 100 years? I think there are more, although this would depend on your definition of hyperinflation (there is more than one).
Pandering To Populism: How Auditing The Fed Hurts The U.S. Economy [View article]
You are indeed correct that auditing the Fed could have economic consquences -- for the banks, the people who run the banks and the Wall Street establishment in particular. The Fed is not independent of this ultimate special interest group. The idea that Fed secrecy is good for the public is nothing but self-serving propaganda from people who are using the Fed to the disadvantage of everyone else.
And by the way, Ron Paul is libertarian. This is not the same as conservative.
Nowhere To Run: The Correlation Bubble [View article]
Brilliant article. Thanks for doing it.
The post-2008 collapse is obviously an even bigger pyramid scheme than the previous one (the entire history of post-World War II era). The ultimate end has to be a collapse of value of paper assets (including fiat money), which is the same as massive price inflation. People should buy hard assets.
U.S. Employment: The Fed And Stimulus Hasn't Helped [View article]
As for your point about whether or not it was worth incurring yearly budget deficits aroundf $1.3 trillion for four years to get 2000 net jobs, I would say that everyone can figure that one out.
You are the one that needs to produce a set of numbers to justify your unsubstantiated claims -- "of course the stimulus created jobs". Really? Tell it to the unemployed. You are also the one engaging in political propaganda or is the correct term a misinformation campaign?
Presumably Mario Draghi will lay out details of the ECB bond purchase plan tomorrow, but what will the bank do if EU states fail to live up to their pledges (like Greece)? Any threat to halt purchases (or even to sell) would carry little weight as the central bank would be too far in at that point. What follows could be a German nightmare - the ECB financing governments who no longer feel the need to reform. [View news story]
12 Reasons This Bull Market Has Legs (Part 1) [View article]
As for the Fed and more QE, you can't print your way to prosperity. QE is good for boosting the market, but like all addictions it takes more and more to achieve the same effect over time and eventually it is needed just to maintain the status quo.
Why The Fed Will Ease In September [View article]
The Fed was also supposed to be announcing QE3 in June (big news story with Goldman Sachs chief economist as source), in July/August (front page of Wall Street Journal), at Jackson Hole and NOW it will be in September. Let's consider that it's just trying to keep the market up until the election and never had any intention of doing QE before November or perhaps even then (one day it will because the economy has become dependent on printed money).
Ben Bernanke Channels The Dalai Lama [View article]
The Fed also admitted that its money-printing backed bond buying could seriously damage the functioning of the Treasury market.
The Fed has also said dozens of times that it will do everything to support the market. What is it going to say? No, we will just sit on our hands and continue to screw up? This is not news.
As for the Fed being confident of its ability to handle the situation. Bernanke was also confident in the spring of 2007 that the mountain of subprime mortgages that existed wouldn't cause any problem for the economy or the markets. (his forecasting record isn't exactly sterling).
And no there is not going to be any QE in September, just as there was none at the June meeting, none at the July/August meeting and none in the speech at Jackson Hole. The Fed is just stringing the market along to try to try to keep it up until the election.
Mr. Bernanke Has It Wrong [View article]
"(Bernanke) left little doubt that he is looking toward doing more to give the economy a lift at the Fed's next policy meeting in September," is Fed-whisperer Jon Hilsenrath's interpretation of The Chairman's speech (perhaps assisted by some off-the-record comments?). The focus on the economy's weakness not being structural is key, says Hilsenrath, for if it's not structural then the Fed can do something about it. Stocks move to session highs. [View news story]
If Bernanke tried QE now before the election, the Republicans would jump all over him for trying to help get Obama relected (Romney has already said more than once he's going to dump Bernanke). The image of the supposedly independent Fed would be blown sky high.
Don Coxe Recommends Investors Read Lenin To Understand The Markets [View article]
As for the triple dip recession, indeed it may not be the case because there has been one long single recession. The U.S. economic numbers are maniupulated in a number of ways to make them look much better than they actually are. Even if you do believe them (and you shouldn't), why should anything that comes from money printing be considered to be real economic growth?
As for Lenin, he also had the idea that destroying the value of the currency was the key to Communism's success. Hyperinflation was purposely created in the early days in post-Czarist Russia so everyone would be impoverished and they would then be dependent on the state. You should see echoes of this today in our current politics. Investors should be paying attention to that.
The Fed Putting America In A Hole [View article]
The biggest one is that empirical observation (ex. reality) contradicts it. Zimbabwe which had the 2nd highest inflation rate in history had a 94% unemployment rate. Yes, almost no one in the entire country had a job. According to you and the Fed Zimbabwe couldn't possibly have had inflation, but it did. And Zimbabwe is not an isolated example. Hyperinflation and very high unemployment go hand in hand.
And in case you think well that can happen in some foreign country, but not in America, consider that there was a severe recession between 1973 and 1975 in the U.S. - the worst since the 1930s Depression. What happened to the inflation rate? It zoomed.
Your other idea about prices would be valid if the "money supply" was flat and not increasing, but that's not the case.
The Fed Putting America In A Hole [View article]
"Financial markets find the Fed quite credible". So when the Fed prints money, uses it to buy Treasuries creating artifical demand that drives interest rates down, this indicates market credibility.
I think it indicates market manipulation.
The Fed Putting America In A Hole [View article]
Hyperinflation has existed on every inhabited continent except Australia.
The Fed Putting America In A Hole [View article]
Jim Rogers: The Agriculture Industry Is Doomed [View article]
The title of this article does not support the content.
Pandering To Populism: How Auditing The Fed Hurts The U.S. Economy [View article]
And by the way, Ron Paul is libertarian. This is not the same as conservative.
Nowhere To Run: The Correlation Bubble [View article]
The post-2008 collapse is obviously an even bigger pyramid scheme than the previous one (the entire history of post-World War II era). The ultimate end has to be a collapse of value of paper assets (including fiat money), which is the same as massive price inflation. People should buy hard assets.