ozzy43's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/191649/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/149209-are-gld-and-slv-legitimate-investment-vehicles?source=feed#comment-616399 616399
Anyone who believes that the Wall Street Journal and NY Times are disinterested, unbiased bystanders who would be willing to expose fraud by financial elites is really living in Wonderland. Many of the people benefiting from the fraud are among the same people who control those Establishment media. It's not surprising that someone who is so blind to the fraud that is the mainstream media would insist on blinding himself to other possible frauds. I notice that his post here was not even in response to the article above - did not address the significant points at all but preferred to post a diatribe on an article cited in the article above. Perhaps THAT is why the post will vanish, if it does. Sounds like obsession to me...

Now, in regard to the article in question, the issue some of us have is: self-directed 401k accounts do not permit acquisition of physical metals, but *do* permit investment in ETFs. In such a case, what would the author suggest as an alternate? Would CEF be the best bet? I don't like miners at this point because I expect this bear market rally to fail at some point, and that would likely drag down miners as well, though perhaps not to the same degree.]]> Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:02:05 -0400
Anyone who believes that the Wall Street Journal and NY Times are disinterested, unbiased bystanders who would be willing to expose fraud by financial elites is really living in Wonderland. Many of the people benefiting from the fraud are among the same people who control those Establishment media. It's not surprising that someone who is so blind to the fraud that is the mainstream media would insist on blinding himself to other possible frauds. I notice that his post here was not even in response to the article above - did not address the significant points at all but preferred to post a diatribe on an article cited in the article above. Perhaps THAT is why the post will vanish, if it does. Sounds like obsession to me...

Now, in regard to the article in question, the issue some of us have is: self-directed 401k accounts do not permit acquisition of physical metals, but *do* permit investment in ETFs. In such a case, what would the author suggest as an alternate? Would CEF be the best bet? I don't like miners at this point because I expect this bear market rally to fail at some point, and that would likely drag down miners as well, though perhaps not to the same degree.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147021-japan-defends-dollars-status-china-tears-it-down?source=feed#comment-574436 574436
This statement would be true if the Chinese were as concerned about short term gain/loss as Americans tend to be. However, China, like Russia, is in this for the long game. If in their view it enhances their long term geopolitical strategy, there is no reason to think they'd balk at losing money in the near term.

It's simply not wise to assume your opponent thinks just like you do, especially in the face of a few millenia of evidence that they do not.]]> Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:44:44 -0400
This statement would be true if the Chinese were as concerned about short term gain/loss as Americans tend to be. However, China, like Russia, is in this for the long game. If in their view it enhances their long term geopolitical strategy, there is no reason to think they'd balk at losing money in the near term.

It's simply not wise to assume your opponent thinks just like you do, especially in the face of a few millenia of evidence that they do not.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146999-summer-2009-stock-market-evaluation?source=feed#comment-574430 574430
"While uncertainty still looms, the data suggests that the worst of the economic and credit crisis appears to be behind us."

Join with these?

"The spring...marks the end of a period of grave concern ... American business is steadily coming back to a normal level of prosperity,"
Julius Barnes, Head of Hoover's National Business Survey, March 16, 1930.

"We are now near the end of the declining phase of the depression," the Harvard Economic Review, November 15, 1930

Only time will tell...]]> Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:40:12 -0400
"While uncertainty still looms, the data suggests that the worst of the economic and credit crisis appears to be behind us."

Join with these?

"The spring...marks the end of a period of grave concern ... American business is steadily coming back to a normal level of prosperity,"
Julius Barnes, Head of Hoover's National Business Survey, March 16, 1930.

"We are now near the end of the declining phase of the depression," the Harvard Economic Review, November 15, 1930

Only time will tell...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145789-california-s-default-is-certain?source=feed#comment-565778 565778
I had no idea that Reagan was active in 1913 in the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, and the passage of the 16th amendment and the income tax - which is when the seeds were sewn for the inevitable default that is coming. Of course, Reagan, among every other president since that time, participated in the watering of those seeds and the faithful tending of the monstrous weed that sprouted, and which now is busily devouring the rest of the garden.

It never ceases to amaze me the utter ignorance of history that is often on display in these mainstream essays. As though these problems began a few short decades ago! Puh-lease! We're seeing the ineluctable culmination of ~100 years (arguably, even more than that) worth of Statist governmental and monetary policies.]]> Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:18:18 -0400
I had no idea that Reagan was active in 1913 in the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, and the passage of the 16th amendment and the income tax - which is when the seeds were sewn for the inevitable default that is coming. Of course, Reagan, among every other president since that time, participated in the watering of those seeds and the faithful tending of the monstrous weed that sprouted, and which now is busily devouring the rest of the garden.

It never ceases to amaze me the utter ignorance of history that is often on display in these mainstream essays. As though these problems began a few short decades ago! Puh-lease! We're seeing the ineluctable culmination of ~100 years (arguably, even more than that) worth of Statist governmental and monetary policies.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145570-why-i-m-keeping-an-eye-on-corporate-defaults?source=feed#comment-563646 563646
This is not a recession, cooked government figures notwithstanding. It's a depression. A fundamental restructuring of the economy is underway, masked by government bailouts of zombie companies and cooked up figures for economic indicators on all fronts. But the toxicity remains. The 'real' unemployment rate is north of 15% already - what's the 'real' GDP? The 'real' inflation rate? Who knows? I do know it is far, far worse than these metrics reveal - and that this is not an accident.

So does it really tell us anything to look at corporate defaults when you have so many sectors being artificially propped up by so many market-distorting forces? I don't know, but I think, like so many other metrics that would yield useful information in a free market, the answers from reading such tea leaves are likely to mislead.]]> Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:33:50 -0400
This is not a recession, cooked government figures notwithstanding. It's a depression. A fundamental restructuring of the economy is underway, masked by government bailouts of zombie companies and cooked up figures for economic indicators on all fronts. But the toxicity remains. The 'real' unemployment rate is north of 15% already - what's the 'real' GDP? The 'real' inflation rate? Who knows? I do know it is far, far worse than these metrics reveal - and that this is not an accident.

So does it really tell us anything to look at corporate defaults when you have so many sectors being artificially propped up by so many market-distorting forces? I don't know, but I think, like so many other metrics that would yield useful information in a free market, the answers from reading such tea leaves are likely to mislead.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/143418-hyperinflation-not-on-the-horizon?source=feed#comment-548553 548553 Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:38:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142922-rising-oil-prices-what-we-have-to-do-asap?source=feed#comment-544831 544831
"I am very optimistic about recovery generally"

You lost me again when you suggested that one thing we could do to combat rising gas prices was to increase taxes on it.]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:49:12 -0400
"I am very optimistic about recovery generally"

You lost me again when you suggested that one thing we could do to combat rising gas prices was to increase taxes on it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141294-in-defense-of-the-dollar?source=feed#comment-531662 531662
The entire preceding article argues against this point cogently - and then the author makes this assertion without any argument or logic to back it up! Unconvincing.

Consider: the only real power that central bankers have comes in two forms:

1. Positive: actions like increasing the money supply, printing money, monetizing debt. All positive actions lead to currency debasement, and these are the 'standard operating procedures' for central banks - indeed, these sorts of actions are their raison d'etre - the whole goal behind establishing central banks was NEVER to 'manage' or 'coordinate' - it has ALWAYS from the very start been to exploit and inflate. This is why the USD has lost more than 90% of its value since the Fed sprang into existence in 1913. No-brainer.

2. Negative: choosing *not* to manipulate and inflate - in other words, doing nothing and allowing markets to manage themselves would be negative actions. How often in the nearly 100 year history of the Fed has it done this, especially during times of crisis? And looking at the current hyper-activist Fed and Treasury, to expect them to engage in such hands-off, negative interactions would be like expecting Ralph Nader to suddenly open a Corsair dealership. It would be to violate everything they stand for. Yet that's what would be required for the Fed to stabilize the dollar long term.

With all the incoming debt (and don't forget - there was something like $60 - $90 TRILLION in public debt incoming BEFORE this crisis [what? you didn't watch I.O.U.S.A.?], which is aggregate to recent debt developments), the Fed and the US Govt has ONLY two options, and the author's knowledge of the history of fiat currencies should make this abundantly clear:

default or debase

Those are the only POSSIBLE paths forward. What we are seeing is that they have made their choice and we're only beginning to glimpse the consequences.]]> Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:05:10 -0400
The entire preceding article argues against this point cogently - and then the author makes this assertion without any argument or logic to back it up! Unconvincing.

Consider: the only real power that central bankers have comes in two forms:

1. Positive: actions like increasing the money supply, printing money, monetizing debt. All positive actions lead to currency debasement, and these are the 'standard operating procedures' for central banks - indeed, these sorts of actions are their raison d'etre - the whole goal behind establishing central banks was NEVER to 'manage' or 'coordinate' - it has ALWAYS from the very start been to exploit and inflate. This is why the USD has lost more than 90% of its value since the Fed sprang into existence in 1913. No-brainer.

2. Negative: choosing *not* to manipulate and inflate - in other words, doing nothing and allowing markets to manage themselves would be negative actions. How often in the nearly 100 year history of the Fed has it done this, especially during times of crisis? And looking at the current hyper-activist Fed and Treasury, to expect them to engage in such hands-off, negative interactions would be like expecting Ralph Nader to suddenly open a Corsair dealership. It would be to violate everything they stand for. Yet that's what would be required for the Fed to stabilize the dollar long term.

With all the incoming debt (and don't forget - there was something like $60 - $90 TRILLION in public debt incoming BEFORE this crisis [what? you didn't watch I.O.U.S.A.?], which is aggregate to recent debt developments), the Fed and the US Govt has ONLY two options, and the author's knowledge of the history of fiat currencies should make this abundantly clear:

default or debase

Those are the only POSSIBLE paths forward. What we are seeing is that they have made their choice and we're only beginning to glimpse the consequences.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140000-questions-about-the-dollar?source=feed#comment-521290 521290
The cherry on top is where the author cites Geithner with an apparent total lack of skepticism as to whether that Wall St banker might not actually be 100% honest.

This article is an exercise in pure fantasy on virtually every level.]]> Thu, 28 May 2009 11:32:15 -0400
The cherry on top is where the author cites Geithner with an apparent total lack of skepticism as to whether that Wall St banker might not actually be 100% honest.

This article is an exercise in pure fantasy on virtually every level.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137902-look-at-oil-not-inflation-as-gold-price-indicator?source=feed#comment-506329 506329 Sat, 16 May 2009 08:52:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/137695-inflation-expectations-and-the-price-of-gold?source=feed#comment-503710 503710 Thu, 14 May 2009 11:34:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/133506-peak-oil-as-a-function-of-earth-s-volume?source=feed#comment-481807 481807
Murray Rothbard once said:

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

This is as true of petroleum geology as it is of economics, and both speak to the loud and vociferous ignorance apparent in this post.]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:15:43 -0400
Murray Rothbard once said:

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

This is as true of petroleum geology as it is of economics, and both speak to the loud and vociferous ignorance apparent in this post.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133085-thoughts-on-the-current-restructuring-of-global-oil-demand?source=feed#comment-477471 477471
So you may be right that one sizable (but far less than a majority) fraction of oil consumption - that concerned with individual drivers and non-commercial vehicles - could probably be somewhat smaller in the developing nations, that seems likely to have a less-than-dramatic impact on the overall oil consumption picture once you factor in all of the other fractions.]]> Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:57:04 -0400
So you may be right that one sizable (but far less than a majority) fraction of oil consumption - that concerned with individual drivers and non-commercial vehicles - could probably be somewhat smaller in the developing nations, that seems likely to have a less-than-dramatic impact on the overall oil consumption picture once you factor in all of the other fractions.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/132848-three-possible-causes-of-yet-another-downturn?source=feed#comment-475644 475644
This statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of, and mistrust in, market forces which cannot be denied. The 'help' government is 'rushing' to supply is, of course, 'making things worse'. Preventing insolvent, corrupt businesses from failing - at gargantuan expense - will only prolong the agony.]]> Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:16:20 -0400
This statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of, and mistrust in, market forces which cannot be denied. The 'help' government is 'rushing' to supply is, of course, 'making things worse'. Preventing insolvent, corrupt businesses from failing - at gargantuan expense - will only prolong the agony.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129525-two-economies-and-one-must-die?source=feed#comment-452412 452412
Putting our faith in *government* to accurately diagnose our economic disease and then to prescribe an efficacious treatment now, are we, fellow capitalists? What across all the ages of history would suggest such foolishness is justified? Government is just as much a parasite as the Casino bosses, and in fact is simply a different face of the same pathology.

Good luck to all. We're gonna need it.]]> Sun, 05 Apr 2009 11:57:22 -0400
Putting our faith in *government* to accurately diagnose our economic disease and then to prescribe an efficacious treatment now, are we, fellow capitalists? What across all the ages of history would suggest such foolishness is justified? Government is just as much a parasite as the Casino bosses, and in fact is simply a different face of the same pathology.

Good luck to all. We're gonna need it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128015-zhou-s-international-reform-proposal-we-can-t-afford-to-ignore-it?source=feed#comment-440856 440856
Lost me right there...there is no more thoroughly discredited economic theory than the one promulgated by Keynes and seized upon by government's worldwide. Again and again, history has rendered its verdict. Yet, again and again, fools and supporters of vast government interference in economic matters have ignored that verdict and wrongheadedly pretended Keynes' views continue to have merit. "Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."

If you think corruption and swindles at the national level are bad, just wait 'til you see what the supra-national level - compliments of the wholly unelected and utterly unaccountable IMF - is able to accomplish.]]> Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:59:06 -0400
Lost me right there...there is no more thoroughly discredited economic theory than the one promulgated by Keynes and seized upon by government's worldwide. Again and again, history has rendered its verdict. Yet, again and again, fools and supporters of vast government interference in economic matters have ignored that verdict and wrongheadedly pretended Keynes' views continue to have merit. "Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."

If you think corruption and swindles at the national level are bad, just wait 'til you see what the supra-national level - compliments of the wholly unelected and utterly unaccountable IMF - is able to accomplish.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126916-how-are-we-going-to-pay-for-all-of-this-stimulus?source=feed#comment-434397 434397
"The conundrum for China lies in the fact that if they keep the increasingly fragrant U.S. paper comprising $1 trillion of their foreign reserves, the gradual yet inevitable erosion of the value of that position means the net worth of China will be concurrently dragged downward.

But if they do start dumping Treasurys [sic], then the value of the U.S. dollar would likely collapse as China’s move would lead the broader market into a wholesale rush to the exits, thereby accelerating their foreign reserve devaluation."

I guess we'll find out where the Chinese stand soon enough. Either way, there is no doubt this is dollar negative/gold positive.

On Mar 20 11:35 AM Paco Ahlgren wrote:

> On one one hand, you see credit destruction as a problem, which to
> me means that the consumer is tapped out -- among other, less significant,
> but no less important aspects. But if the consumer IS tapped out,
> then we're going to buy FAR fewer Chinese exports. Again, the Chinese
> aren't stupid; they see this too.
>
> Ozzy, thank you for the kind words, and thank you for the feedback
> and insight.
>
> Paco]]> Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:17:40 -0400
"The conundrum for China lies in the fact that if they keep the increasingly fragrant U.S. paper comprising $1 trillion of their foreign reserves, the gradual yet inevitable erosion of the value of that position means the net worth of China will be concurrently dragged downward.

But if they do start dumping Treasurys [sic], then the value of the U.S. dollar would likely collapse as China’s move would lead the broader market into a wholesale rush to the exits, thereby accelerating their foreign reserve devaluation."

I guess we'll find out where the Chinese stand soon enough. Either way, there is no doubt this is dollar negative/gold positive.

On Mar 20 11:35 AM Paco Ahlgren wrote:

> On one one hand, you see credit destruction as a problem, which to
> me means that the consumer is tapped out -- among other, less significant,
> but no less important aspects. But if the consumer IS tapped out,
> then we're going to buy FAR fewer Chinese exports. Again, the Chinese
> aren't stupid; they see this too.
>
> Ozzy, thank you for the kind words, and thank you for the feedback
> and insight.
>
> Paco]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126916-how-are-we-going-to-pay-for-all-of-this-stimulus?source=feed#comment-433597 433597
The overall economic environment today, both domestic and global, is so vastly different from that of the 30s as to obviate any outcome of a comparison between the RTC and today's shenanigans, IMO. Any "profits" from current government "investment" will undoubtedly be of the smoke-and-mirrors variety. To believe differently is to reject the lessons of of human history - to insist 'this time it's different!'

I'm also curious to know: what is the difference between a "budget deficit" and a budget deficit?

And I do not think it is a stretch to say that, while $100/bbl oil may not be the 'end of the world', $150/bbl oil - if sustained - will most definitely mean the end of the world as we know it.

On Mar 20 10:30 AM Jonathan Christopher wrote:

> First: I agree that the effects of the Government actions (FED
> and Treasury) will eventually result in Inflation.
> Second: There are parts of the "Budget Deficit" that are only temporary-
> Much of the securities being purchased will eventually result in
> both repayment and even profits to the Federal Government. Remember
> that the Resolution Trust Corporation eventually resulted in profits
> to the government, as did the Chrysler Bailout.
> Third: The dollar is now worth about four cents, compared to a
> dollar in 1933. This collapse in the dollar has occurred without
> a collapse of the society. While we may end up with a dollar worth
> only two cents instead of four cents, that will not be the end of
> the world, but it probably means $100/barrel oil and $2000 per oz
> gold.
>
> Please turn off the hysteria button.]]> Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:21:39 -0400
The overall economic environment today, both domestic and global, is so vastly different from that of the 30s as to obviate any outcome of a comparison between the RTC and today's shenanigans, IMO. Any "profits" from current government "investment" will undoubtedly be of the smoke-and-mirrors variety. To believe differently is to reject the lessons of of human history - to insist 'this time it's different!'

I'm also curious to know: what is the difference between a "budget deficit" and a budget deficit?

And I do not think it is a stretch to say that, while $100/bbl oil may not be the 'end of the world', $150/bbl oil - if sustained - will most definitely mean the end of the world as we know it.

On Mar 20 10:30 AM Jonathan Christopher wrote:

> First: I agree that the effects of the Government actions (FED
> and Treasury) will eventually result in Inflation.
> Second: There are parts of the "Budget Deficit" that are only temporary-
> Much of the securities being purchased will eventually result in
> both repayment and even profits to the Federal Government. Remember
> that the Resolution Trust Corporation eventually resulted in profits
> to the government, as did the Chrysler Bailout.
> Third: The dollar is now worth about four cents, compared to a
> dollar in 1933. This collapse in the dollar has occurred without
> a collapse of the society. While we may end up with a dollar worth
> only two cents instead of four cents, that will not be the end of
> the world, but it probably means $100/barrel oil and $2000 per oz
> gold.
>
> Please turn off the hysteria button.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126916-how-are-we-going-to-pay-for-all-of-this-stimulus?source=feed#comment-433419 433419
It's the multiplier effect on the credit side, due to fractional reserve banking, that makes printing money the weak partner when it comes to the rate of change of the total money supply.

Additionally, I think that the answer to the Chinese question is more complicated. Occam's Razor may be useful as a tool, but it's not a mathematical theorem. In this case, the Chinese are dependent on us to buy their exports. If the Fed can convince them that igniting a new lending boom, via lowered mortgage/refi rates, will get Americans borrowing and spending again, then even as their dollar stash decreases in value, their export-based economy can make up for it. What the Chinese (like all authoritarian States) dread is *not* falling value of their dollar portfolio so much as a rising domestic unemployment rate and civil unrest. After all, the Chinese government is not just an investor - it is an oligarchic power structure, and it's true goal is to maintain power. Falling dollar may hurt, but civil unrest of a billion or so peasants - which already was an issue - is a far more dangerous threat. So to view the Chinese State as being motivated merely by investment issues seems to me to be a misreading of the situation.

Also, that sizable dollar holding gives the Chinese a very strong hand when it comes to dealing with America on numerous levels - which makes it a strategic reserve, and not merely an investment. The more US bonds they buy, the more leverage they have, even if they lose some money-on-paper in the process.

It's a complicated question, and I don't pretend to know the ultimate answer, but there is clearly a LOT more going on than a simple investment decision based on the time rate of change of the dollar value.

All that said, I love your articles and analysis Paco - even if we disagree on some of the central issues. We need more adherents of the Austrian school posting articulate pieces like you do.]]> Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:32:45 -0400
It's the multiplier effect on the credit side, due to fractional reserve banking, that makes printing money the weak partner when it comes to the rate of change of the total money supply.

Additionally, I think that the answer to the Chinese question is more complicated. Occam's Razor may be useful as a tool, but it's not a mathematical theorem. In this case, the Chinese are dependent on us to buy their exports. If the Fed can convince them that igniting a new lending boom, via lowered mortgage/refi rates, will get Americans borrowing and spending again, then even as their dollar stash decreases in value, their export-based economy can make up for it. What the Chinese (like all authoritarian States) dread is *not* falling value of their dollar portfolio so much as a rising domestic unemployment rate and civil unrest. After all, the Chinese government is not just an investor - it is an oligarchic power structure, and it's true goal is to maintain power. Falling dollar may hurt, but civil unrest of a billion or so peasants - which already was an issue - is a far more dangerous threat. So to view the Chinese State as being motivated merely by investment issues seems to me to be a misreading of the situation.

Also, that sizable dollar holding gives the Chinese a very strong hand when it comes to dealing with America on numerous levels - which makes it a strategic reserve, and not merely an investment. The more US bonds they buy, the more leverage they have, even if they lose some money-on-paper in the process.

It's a complicated question, and I don't pretend to know the ultimate answer, but there is clearly a LOT more going on than a simple investment decision based on the time rate of change of the dollar value.

All that said, I love your articles and analysis Paco - even if we disagree on some of the central issues. We need more adherents of the Austrian school posting articulate pieces like you do.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126702-buy-gold-on-weakness?source=feed#comment-431587 431587
That said, it certainly seems like inflation is in the cards in the future - but that's probably years away because the Fed has been so spectacularly unsuccessful so far in achieving its anti-deflationary aims and banks are just sitting on their funds, since this is the smart money thing to do in this environment.

What I'd like to see is a serious analysis which looks at the prospects for gold in an extended deflationary period. I am currently long gold, and plan to add cautiously, especially if we retest lows, but not because inflation is imminent.]]> Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:14:58 -0400
That said, it certainly seems like inflation is in the cards in the future - but that's probably years away because the Fed has been so spectacularly unsuccessful so far in achieving its anti-deflationary aims and banks are just sitting on their funds, since this is the smart money thing to do in this environment.

What I'd like to see is a serious analysis which looks at the prospects for gold in an extended deflationary period. I am currently long gold, and plan to add cautiously, especially if we retest lows, but not because inflation is imminent.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/125499-world-war-iii-u-s-vs-china?source=feed#comment-423146 423146
"It took the onset of World War II to lift the world out of the Great Depression that began in 1929."

This notion has been conclusively disproven by the brilliant Robert Higgs - you can read about it here:

www.independent.org/ne...

"ABSTRACT: Relying on standard measures of macroeconomic performance, historians and economists believe that “war prosperity” prevailed in the United States during World War II. This belief is ill-founded, because it does not recognize that the United States had a command economy during the war. From 1942 to 1946 some macroeconomic performance measures are statistically inaccurate; others are conceptually inappropriate. A better grounded interpretation is that during the war the economy was a huge arsenal in which the well-being of consumers deteriorated. After the war genuine prosperity returned for the first time since 1929."

And in case anyone still believes the nonsense about the 'benefits' of FDR's New Deal, Higgs has helpfully debunked this myth, as well:

www.independent.org/ne...]]> Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:57:23 -0400
"It took the onset of World War II to lift the world out of the Great Depression that began in 1929."

This notion has been conclusively disproven by the brilliant Robert Higgs - you can read about it here:

www.independent.org/ne...

"ABSTRACT: Relying on standard measures of macroeconomic performance, historians and economists believe that “war prosperity” prevailed in the United States during World War II. This belief is ill-founded, because it does not recognize that the United States had a command economy during the war. From 1942 to 1946 some macroeconomic performance measures are statistically inaccurate; others are conceptually inappropriate. A better grounded interpretation is that during the war the economy was a huge arsenal in which the well-being of consumers deteriorated. After the war genuine prosperity returned for the first time since 1929."

And in case anyone still believes the nonsense about the 'benefits' of FDR's New Deal, Higgs has helpfully debunked this myth, as well:

www.independent.org/ne...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124642-how-long-before-the-dollar-fails?source=feed#comment-418010 418010
"we borrowed our way out of the Great Depression"

As someone who holds to the Austrian view, you must be familiar with Robert Higgs - suggest you review these two essays of his which demonstrate that it was NOT borrowing that led America out of GD1:

www.independent.org/ne...
www.independent.org/ne...
]]> Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:06:41 -0400
"we borrowed our way out of the Great Depression"

As someone who holds to the Austrian view, you must be familiar with Robert Higgs - suggest you review these two essays of his which demonstrate that it was NOT borrowing that led America out of GD1:

www.independent.org/ne...
www.independent.org/ne...
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/116370-economy-in-crisis-three-bears-and-a-missing-goldilocks?source=feed#comment-368360 368360
"the country was pulled out of that depression by the onset and eventual entrance of America into World War II, NOT by government spending programs alone."

Robert Higgs' classic economic analysis "Wartime Prosperity? A Reassessment of the U.S. Economy in the 1940s" disproves that notion once and for all. Pity so few have read it. 'Tis here:

www.independent.org/ne...]]> Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:47:28 -0500
"the country was pulled out of that depression by the onset and eventual entrance of America into World War II, NOT by government spending programs alone."

Robert Higgs' classic economic analysis "Wartime Prosperity? A Reassessment of the U.S. Economy in the 1940s" disproves that notion once and for all. Pity so few have read it. 'Tis here:

www.independent.org/ne...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/115677-de-leveraging-is-not-deflation?source=feed#comment-362489 362489
So C is going down, on net. For now. That means deflation. The net money supply is shrinking, despite the Fed and fed actions. Until that trend slows, then stops, inflation will not be a worry. And trying to time that occurrence - a virtual impossibility IMHO - will probably be suicidal. Might be next quarter - or next year, or the next. Throughout, governmental manipulation will continue to make things difficult to understand and extrapolate.]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:08:25 -0500
So C is going down, on net. For now. That means deflation. The net money supply is shrinking, despite the Fed and fed actions. Until that trend slows, then stops, inflation will not be a worry. And trying to time that occurrence - a virtual impossibility IMHO - will probably be suicidal. Might be next quarter - or next year, or the next. Throughout, governmental manipulation will continue to make things difficult to understand and extrapolate.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/115079-a-depression-and-recovery-in-internet-time?source=feed#comment-357519 357519
"Indeed, the eye of the storm has passed and 2009 will be a much better year than everyone expects."

Anyone who has lived in Florida can tell you: it is after the eye passes and the 'back' side of the storm then hits that most of the serious damage is done. The author does not seem to realize just how apt his metaphor is, because he does not understand hurricanes any better than he understands economics, which is born out by making ludicrous assertions like 'over the top deficit spending' is the 'only known fix'. I suggest some reading on Austrian economics.]]> Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:01:26 -0500
"Indeed, the eye of the storm has passed and 2009 will be a much better year than everyone expects."

Anyone who has lived in Florida can tell you: it is after the eye passes and the 'back' side of the storm then hits that most of the serious damage is done. The author does not seem to realize just how apt his metaphor is, because he does not understand hurricanes any better than he understands economics, which is born out by making ludicrous assertions like 'over the top deficit spending' is the 'only known fix'. I suggest some reading on Austrian economics.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113339-high-cash-stockpile-available-for-buying-stocks-to-fuel-a-rally?source=feed#comment-347242 347242
These are, presumably, the same economists who insisted up until 3 months ago that the US would avoid a recession?

Given how wrong mainstream economists have been about EVERYTHING recently, it makes about as much sense to trust their predictions going forward as it does to listen to the Intel community's prattle about geopolitics. At least the latter don't constrain themselves via wholly artificial and proven-wrong econometric models.

The only economists worth listening to are those who correctly predicted what has happened - that would be one school and one school only: the Austrian economists.]]> Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:43:50 -0500
These are, presumably, the same economists who insisted up until 3 months ago that the US would avoid a recession?

Given how wrong mainstream economists have been about EVERYTHING recently, it makes about as much sense to trust their predictions going forward as it does to listen to the Intel community's prattle about geopolitics. At least the latter don't constrain themselves via wholly artificial and proven-wrong econometric models.

The only economists worth listening to are those who correctly predicted what has happened - that would be one school and one school only: the Austrian economists.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112006-as-good-as-gold?source=feed#comment-339734 339734 Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:09:07 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/110609-the-problem-with-gld-and-slv-etfs?source=feed#comment-329158 329158
The latter would be vastly preferrable, but today, government legislated vehicles like IRAs and 401(k)'s represent the only available investment dollars for most.

In a non-ideal world, the GLD and SLV ETF's have their place, and their risks.]]> Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:12:34 -0500
The latter would be vastly preferrable, but today, government legislated vehicles like IRAs and 401(k)'s represent the only available investment dollars for most.

In a non-ideal world, the GLD and SLV ETF's have their place, and their risks.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110464-fiat-money-and-a-profligate-congress-a-bad-combination?source=feed#comment-327855 327855
Also worth noting: every episode of fiat currencies deployment, historically speaking, has ended in massive economic dislocation. In France, in the late 18th century, it ended in the guillotine being put to good use. Perhaps they were on to something...]]> Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:01:49 -0500
Also worth noting: every episode of fiat currencies deployment, historically speaking, has ended in massive economic dislocation. In France, in the late 18th century, it ended in the guillotine being put to good use. Perhaps they were on to something...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110281-the-poor-poor-dollar?source=feed#comment-326301 326301 Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:18:30 -0500