Seeking Alpha

"The Fed is missing on both of its goals," says San Francisco Fed chief Williams (not an FOMC...

"The Fed is missing on both of its goals," says San Francisco Fed chief Williams (not an FOMC voter this year), noting not just the high unemployment rate, but inflation of 1.5% - lower than the targeted 2%. Translation: The beatings will continue; by Williams' calculations, well into the 2nd half of 2013.
Comments (64)
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Love it! QEternity to 2015!
    14 Jan 2013, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    Wouldn't it be 'QEfortwomoreyears'?
    14 Jan 2013, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Those two years will feel like Eternity for the bears and gold bugs.
    14 Jan 2013, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7620) | Send Message
     
    Isn't this the definition of insanity?

     

    Why can't these morons wake up and realize that just maybe their policy IS the problem not the solution?
    14 Jan 2013, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Death is inevitable in the long run. Should we ban all medical treatments in the mean time?
    14 Jan 2013, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • tunaman4u2
    , contributor
    Comments (2743) | Send Message
     
    Death is inevitable, why waste time working?
    Why work for 8.50 per hour when the Fed makes that an unlivable wage? Collect food stamps instead

     

    Way to call it Macro
    14 Jan 2013, 01:22 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    I agree that we need to raise the minimum wage, bring back unions, and have a broader food stamp program.
    14 Jan 2013, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7620) | Send Message
     
    Lets also add in 2,500 weeks unemployment so nobody ever has to work again.
    14 Jan 2013, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    But that would only take a 26 year-old adolescent to 74... better make it 3500 weeks just to be safe.
    14 Jan 2013, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3131) | Send Message
     
    Yeah since $20 min wages and strong unions in places like Greece Spain and Italy have done wonders for youth unemployment there

     

    (Hopefully your sarcasm detector is on today, Macro)

     

    http://nbcnews.to/W41gxq

     

    http://bit.ly/13waB7C
    14 Jan 2013, 03:01 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Strong unions did wonders in the USA in the 1950s.
    14 Jan 2013, 07:33 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Wyostocks, how long do people get unemployment these days?
    14 Jan 2013, 07:33 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7620) | Send Message
     
    MI
    not long enough
    14 Jan 2013, 07:35 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    So you do not know the answer. Figures.
    14 Jan 2013, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    I think the with the fed intervention it's at 99 weeks, and with the fiscal cliff deal thing it kept the federal 99 weeks in place. So people can continue to start their job search at week 96 or 97, or just let the UEI expire, and continue working their cash-only job.

     

    Of course, in the 99 weeks, a woman can push out 2 kids, and the increased welfare payments will compensate for the loss of UEI. More free food and EBT payouts, too. Not to mention WIC...
    14 Jan 2013, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    John, you and I both know that the only way to stop this abuse is to starve the kids. Yet the Republicans are not starting a "Starve the kids" campaign as they want to win elections. What can we do?
    14 Jan 2013, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    Yes. Such a conundrum. The 3500 week idea seems to be on the right track. Maybe pay them $5,000/week a'la PCH, as well. Government supplied chauffeurs would be a nice addition, as well as someone to wipe the private bits when done using the commode.

     

    Can we just stick 'em in the Matrix to add a few watts, or are we not there yet?
    14 Jan 2013, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    John, It is no joking matter. Unless Republicans start a campaign to starve the kids, nothing is going to change. You and I both know that the democrats are not going to do it by themselves. I think you have the hallmarks of a great leader, why don't you start a "Starve the Kids" campaign?
    14 Jan 2013, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    No, Macro - you're converting me. Was my plan not liberal Democrat enough yet? What if I increase it to $6,000/week, throw in a maid, and free big-screen TV's in every room?

     

    Is that getting closer?
    14 Jan 2013, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    No John, that would be batshit crazy like the Tea Party Patriots. The liberal Democrat solution will be to do as I said - raise the minimum wage, bring back unions, and have a broader food stamp program.
    14 Jan 2013, 08:44 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    Those are fine ideas, indeed. There won't be anywhere to work, so everyone can collect unemployment. The increase in the 'food stamp' program will be a boon, since w/o a paycheck, it's hard to buy food. No need to print money anymore, either - just press a new trillion-dollar coin once a week. No more annoying pennies! Yay!
    14 Jan 2013, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    There won't be anywhere to work, John? How exactly did you divine that? The things I read on SA ... I tell you ...
    14 Jan 2013, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    Increase the minimum wage and bring back unions = corps say forget this place - China and India is where the growth is and they work for peanuts with no unions.

     

    But that's a GOOD thing! We need to build a bigger 'safety net', and we can all gather together and sing Kumbaya and eat our food stamp food, and then retire to the smoking room to enjoy a smoke and a drink thanks to the EBT easy money machine.

     

    Can always increase it to 2 trillion-dollar coins / week, right?

     

    This Democrat thing is kinda nice - I like it! Thanks for making me see the light.
    14 Jan 2013, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    John, The current minimum wage is already far higher than the wages in China and India, and there are no unions. Why are there still jobs in the USA?
    14 Jan 2013, 09:05 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    I guess because the minimum wage is not yet high enough. We've only lost how many jobs? Do you think raising the minimum wage will increase employment in the U.S.?

     

    Seriously, I think there's still token jobs in the U.S. to subsidize (via the U.S. government in many cases) the 3rd world countries. Look at pharma prices here versus the rest of the world... School books... Healthcare (the fastest growing employment sector!)

     

    We are redistributing our wealth on a global basis. It's wonderful! Can I early vote yet for the Biden/Clinton ticket?
    14 Jan 2013, 09:13 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    So John, the way to create American jobs is a wage cap matching the minimum wage in China and India?
    14 Jan 2013, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    Leave the min. wage where it is federally, and eliminate public unions. There's my answer. That will increase employment in the U.S.

     

    Now, you get to answer mine. Do you think raising the minimum wage and increasing the prevalence of unions in the U.S. workforce will increase employment in the U.S.?
    14 Jan 2013, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Why do you think that will increase employment, John?

     

    No, I do not think my solution will increase employment in the USA, however, it will increase wages and GDP, enhance the tax base, and afford the USA to provide social safety nets for those unfortunately without work.
    14 Jan 2013, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    Without public unions, the deficit will decrease dramatically. There will be a lot of ex-feds looking for work and will take the federally mandated minimum wage (or better if their skills are deserving). Outsourcing would slow.

     

    Now, quid pro quo, Clarice.

     

    Do you think your solution will decrease employment, or will employment stay static where it is? You said it would not increase employment, so it has to be one of those other two options.
    14 Jan 2013, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    So John, you think the way to lower unemployment is to actually create more unemployment? Wow, man! Far out.

     

    I think my solution will increase unemployment, but by a smaller percentage than the increase in average wage, hence the overall income and taxation base will increase as will GDP. So we will be able to tax part of the excess amount to fund those out of employment.
    14 Jan 2013, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    No. Take away public union featherbeds, and limit UEI to 26 weeks and people WILL find work. The federal deficit will decrease, to boot.

     

    Your solution will snowball until nobody has a job. Or do you believe that there is a point when it will staunch the loss of jobs and reverse trend? What would be the catalyst for that? An even higher minimum wage and more food stamps?
    14 Jan 2013, 10:27 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Oh wow, not only create more unemployment, take away unemployment insurance as well. That will create employment. Farther out!

     

    There is a point where the situation will reverse. I can't tell you where that is we should experiment and find out. No harm in that as it will all be positive in the beginning. When the trend reverses, back off.
    14 Jan 2013, 10:32 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    Limiting UEI is not taking it away. Call it incentive. Necessity is a motivator.

     

    But sure, let's experiment with increasing unemployment because, afterall, it will be a positive.
    14 Jan 2013, 10:46 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Well, we can use the extra taxes to expand the Govt and employ those people. That will increase GDP further and lower unemployment at the same time.

     

    So you think all we need to lower unemployment is to starve people? Why not mandate a wage of 0, plus provide whips for free to the employers?
    14 Jan 2013, 10:51 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    I said nothing about starving people. I talked about motivating people.

     

    So you think we could expand government to infinity and employ everyone? Our GDP would be off the charts.

     

    We could get up every morning and stand in a line and push papers to one another. Utopia!
    14 Jan 2013, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    I know, Jon, you talked about motivating people by starving them. You have the marks of a true leader.

     

    I think everything in life is about balance. Like I said, why expand forever? Expand till the incremental benefit is zero. Then stop.

     

    Can I ask you a serious question? Where do you get this antisocial attitude from? Starving people to motivate them is sick. I am surprised that so many conservatives subscribe to this line of thinking. Did no one ever do nice things to them? Were they not loved when they were kids? It just amazes me.
    14 Jan 2013, 11:06 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    The problem is, I never said anything about starving people.
    14 Jan 2013, 11:09 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    I know Jon. You merely said that you would throw a bunch of other guys out of their jobs, then make sure they do not get unemployment insurance to feed themselves and their families. You never said that they should be starved.

     

    All to motivate them, of course.

     

    Now can you please answer my question? Where does this anti-social behavior come from?
    14 Jan 2013, 11:12 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    Wait, Macro, I think I have a solution that might work for both of us.... Keep "benefits" how they are. Heck, increase them as much as you want. BUT!

     

    In order to receive "welfare", "EBT", "section-8", "WIC", "forever UEI", you MUST do two things:

     

    1. Pass a drug test.
    2. Work 40 hours per week doing some form of community service (picking up trash, growing a community garden, etc.)

     

    Compensation for those 40 hours would be receiving your "benefits". No "paycheck", just the "benefits".

     

    Would that be acceptable? If yes, great. If no, why not?
    14 Jan 2013, 11:18 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Jon, What will happen to the existing folks who are employed to do that stuff today? Fire them?
    14 Jan 2013, 11:24 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    Community service is by definition "not for pay". It shouldn't interfere with anyone's employment. So, with that out of the way, that would work for you?
    14 Jan 2013, 11:28 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Where I live, people get paid for picking up the trash.

     

    How about counter proposal? I am willing to have pre-conditions to social benefits. The drug test is a bit stupid, so I can't agree to that. But I am OK if the condition is that these people will have to actively look for jobs so that they can be out of UI. If they are working 40 hours a week, there is no time left to look for jobs. If they do not have the skills to find a job, then they have to go to college, taxpayer paid of course. You cool with that?
    14 Jan 2013, 11:43 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    BTW Jon, I am still curious why so many on the right are so anti-social. Can you please tell me where this meanness comes from? Were they never loved?
    14 Jan 2013, 11:44 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3332) | Send Message
     
    uh, yes and no. What certainly did wonders was being virtually the lone standing industrial superpower without credible competitors in a world suddenly awash in new wartime-accelerated technology... you know radar, television, jet airplanes, nascent computers etc... add to that an incredibly tough, self-reliant, and industrious citizenry, one tempered beyond measure in the forges of both the great depression and a two-front war.... And all that lasted about say, twenty years.
    15 Jan 2013, 01:41 AM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    So what can we do now? Just cut social spending?
    15 Jan 2013, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    Not "just", but that's a big part of what needs to happen.
    15 Jan 2013, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Why? I can't make the connection between cutting social spending and generating employment, other than it will starve a segment of the population who will then be willing to work for pennies. But that will only displace the currently working population, so unemployment won't go down.

     

    Help me understand, please.
    15 Jan 2013, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    Stop it with the starving thing - nobody's gonna starve. Perhaps they will take the jobs that 90% of the people on SA scorn - yeah, $10/hour. So what? They won't starve, and they're working.

     

    Oh yeah - I don't consider myself anti-social at all (to answer an earlier question). And the fact that I do not want to support other people when they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves does not make me so.
    15 Jan 2013, 07:24 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    But where are the $10/hour jobs, John?
    15 Jan 2013, 07:44 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    You have to actually go out and apply for them to get them....
    15 Jan 2013, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, but where are these jobs? You don't know, right? You just made something up, like an abundance of poverty level jobs.
    15 Jan 2013, 09:08 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    Anecdotal? Okay. Around here (in the $10/hour range) I could get hired tomorrow at: Walmart, Chilis, Lowes, Tractor Supply, Home Depot, Fred's, Kroger, Advance Auto, Auto Zone. That's off the top of my head - probably many more if I drove down the highway and looked. That's just mainly retail gigs.

     

    In my own line of work, I could get hired (tonight, probably) at any company that does HVAC work around here, although that would be more than $10/hour. But many of those same companies would hire someone with no experience who is hard working and reliable, and they would make more than $10 / hour (but they would definitely earn it).

     

    If I would want any of those jobs, however, I would have to actually go in and apply for them. Without never-ending UEI and lucrative welfare "benefits", that motivates people to do exactly that.
    15 Jan 2013, 09:27 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    How much UEI and benefits do they get? More than $20k/year?
    15 Jan 2013, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    More deflection.... You string together a lot of words, and never manage to say anything.

     

    There's the jobs I spoke of, good sir. Easy enough for anyone to get and avoid UEI and "welfare" altogether.

     

    Oh yeah, to add to an earlier comment, you can indeed find a job (better job or different job) even while working 40 hours / week in another job. I've done it. I've found "upgrade" jobs with better benefits and I was working 60-70 hours / week in the job I had at the time.
    15 Jan 2013, 10:05 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    John, for your thesis to be true, they must be making more than $20k/year from UEI and welfare, right?
    15 Jan 2013, 10:08 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    Varies from state to state, and by benefits received (WIC, SNAP, EBT, S8, super-high octance UEI). But on aggregate, yes, I would hazard to guess that the median "benefit" income is higher than $20,000 / year.

     

    All besides the point, however. At $10/hr. full-time (or two jobs at that, or three) you can "make a living" w/o government assistance.
    15 Jan 2013, 10:28 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    You would hazard a guess? ROFL! So you don't know. Makes sense. It is easy to say that people are living like kings and queens on welfare without actually knowing how much they get. Very logical.
    15 Jan 2013, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    So, what is the average combined government "benefit" amount? You don't know either. I doubt the government even knows the bottom line on many of its wards. Apparently enough to live on, as they are not starving to death.

     

    Once again - they should ditch the government "benefits", take the low-paying job, and work for a living. They would still not starve to death, and I would not be forced to kick in to support them.

     

    Win-win.
    15 Jan 2013, 10:44 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    I don't know, indeed, but I am not the one who has been clamoring that they are high enough to discourage people from taking jobs.

     

    Never make up data in debates. Makes you look foolish.
    15 Jan 2013, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3582) | Send Message
     
    I never said they were "high enough to discourage people from taking jobs". I said they are collecting these benefits when there are jobs that they could get to make the collection of benefits unnecessary.

     

    You don't even want people to do community service to receive these "benefits".

     

    Unlike you, I would actually like to see people better themselves. Government checks don't do that. Hard work can.
    15 Jan 2013, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Even I want to better people, John. I want conservatives to become compassionate.
    15 Jan 2013, 11:06 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    The debate over the debt ceiling and Obama's insistence on raising it without negotiating on spending cuts is fiscal policy confronting The Feds pushing on a string. Obama wants to spend his way to recovery while the fiscal conservatives cry BS. If both sides are serious, they should take it to the mats and wait for the dust to clear, but we know this game of chicken will be decided by the political winds.
    14 Jan 2013, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (8422) | Send Message
     
    Who wants to have a bet that the Congressional Republicans will cave in and raise the debt ceiling? Rationale in my article.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    14 Jan 2013, 07:35 PM Reply Like
  • Whitehawk
    , contributor
    Comments (3129) | Send Message
     
    Fed missing victims; theft to continue.
    14 Jan 2013, 03:42 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|