Seeking Alpha

Econophile

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Econophile's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The 'High Oil Prices = Recession' Fallacy [View article]
    Since I have no idea what oil prices will be H2, I have no way to correlate it. My opinion on H2 may be found here: http://bit.ly/xpXUZM
    Mar 4 04:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 'High Oil Prices = Recession' Fallacy [View article]
    Sorry, Dave, I guess we aren't communicating. I don't understand your comment. My article doesn't say the things you think it says. My point was that rising oil prices don't cause recessions. Don't know what status quo is supposed to be at any point; markets constantly fluctuate. But thank you for reading, Jeff
    Mar 1 04:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 'High Oil Prices = Recession' Fallacy [View article]
    I am not a Monetarist, but rather "Austrian" which is quite different. Friedman is correct but he wasn't the first one to say that. Also, my chart measures prices of gasoline, not necessarily CPI, although the correlation would still hold. Money supply is a tricky thing to measure and I don't follow MZM, but what is called True (or "Austrian") MS (similar to M2). And in fact, the data do support the case. It isn't within the scope of this article to discuss this, but let me pose the question: if MS was static, and oil prices go up, what would be the impact on ALL prices? Things that people don't buy would decline in price because of lack of demand. Price inflation occurs when ALL prices go up. Thus there needs to be another explanation and that is MS. If you wish more on this topic, let me know and I will direct you further. Thanks for the comment. J
    Feb 29 07:22 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 'High Oil Prices = Recession' Fallacy [View article]
    It isn't inelastic. Data shows that usage goes down with higher prices. Also, while supplies may be dwindling faster than new supply is brought on, it doesn't mean that doesn't affect prices. Thank you for your comment.
    Feb 29 07:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is This Recovery? Part II [View article]
    Flow, I would respond but I have no idea what you are saying here. Thanks, J
    Feb 19 04:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is This Recovery? Part I [View article]
    Flow, I think you and I come from different planets. Your view of history and the economy must mean we abide in parallel universes. I would disagree with everything you said. BTW, tell me who you are and I will ask Fekete about you. Email me at econophile@dailycapita...
    Feb 17 06:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is This Recovery? Part II [View article]
    Another good point. Banks actually don't want your money because they have few places to put it. ZIRP forces them and us to invest in riskier asset.

    Thanks,
    Jeff
    Feb 16 07:44 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is This Recovery? Part II [View article]
    See my comment on this. Briefly, you cannot rely on GDP in light of fiat money injections. BTW, did you know that it was FDR who invented the term "recession"? All economic declines before then were called depressions. They just didn't want to admit that 1937 was another "depression" so they called it a recession. I know what the NBER says, but I think they are wrong and misleading. Ignore conventional wisdom Freddy, they have been consistently wrong.

    Thanks for the comments,
    Jeff
    Feb 16 07:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is This Recovery? Part II [View article]
    Thannks! J
    Feb 16 07:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is This Recovery? Part II [View article]
    See my reply to your comment in Part I. Actually excess reserves were created by the Fed as part of a discount window flood of cash into banks early on in the Crash, and most of it is parked at the Fed as reserves. That is in effect fiat money-in-waitng.That is different than the tool they use in QE. QE is a direct injection of fiat money into the economy (into the pockets of prime dealers). Excess reserves are not being used yet, not because they are "hoarding" it but, mostly they don't have demand from borrowers. You are correct that some part of it relates to balance sheet caution, but mostly, banks are limited by their capital, rather than anything else. Also, fiscal stim is not the same. Basically they are taking money out of one pocket (by borrowing) and spending it on things they want rather than what the market wants. No net gain.

    Thanks again for your comments.
    Jeff
    Feb 16 07:30 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is This Recovery? Part I [View article]
    Interesting about Fekete. I am fairly familiar with him and he is definitely Austrian. One of my writers at the Daily Capitalist is a student of his. It would be hard to discuss Austrian theory in a comment. But ... the Austrians were some of the few that saw the debacle coming. That is the value of this theory. It is valuable in real time and it has certainly helped me with my investments. MMT IMHO is a crackpot theory that is as old as the hills (John Law, etc.). I've met one of its proponents and was impressed only with the proponent's lack of understanding of what money is.

    If you wish to learn what Austrian Theory is, then I have a reading list that starts out with some short, general articles giving good overall descriptions of what it is. Try, http://bit.ly/wvjPLA.

    Thanks for your comments and your interest.

    Jeff
    Feb 16 07:24 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is This Recovery? Part II [View article]
    I am biased, you are correct. Name one economist who isn't. My agenda, if you will, is the truth as I see it. While we have been contemplating selling our research, so far we don't. So, I have no dog in this fight except for my own money. Thanks for the comment. Jeff
    Feb 16 07:12 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is This Recovery? Part I [View article]
    Yikes, Asbytec, MMT? It describes nothing. Sorry, but you've picked up on a rather ill fated idea. Fiat money swaps something (a real asset) for nothing (fiat paper). Try Austrian money theory. My forecasts have been pretty good, are based on Austrian theory, so I'll rest on my laurels. Also, can you tell me how we've not had a hard landing? Despite the Fed's policies, nothing has worked for them. We are in our 5th year of high unemployment, stagnation, and declining RE values. Would you rather have accepted a year and a half of pain and a quicker recovery or are you happy with what we have now. 13 million people would take the short route. See Part II on Thursday.
    Feb 16 01:14 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is This Recovery? Part I [View article]
    You have it exactly right!
    Feb 16 01:06 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is This Recovery? Part I [View article]
    Freddy, I am arguing exactly the opposite. See Part II. Jeff
    Feb 16 01:05 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
234 Comments
166 Likes