Seeking Alpha

Nick B D

Nick B D
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The Real Fallout From The Welch Jobs Debate [View article]
    Oct 11, 2012. 12:17 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Real Fallout From The Welch Jobs Debate [View article]
    Please, does anyone think Welch and the others would have made these comments when Bush was President or if Romney ever is? Everybody knows what this is about. Talk about naive...
    Oct 11, 2012. 12:03 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • What's Behind the U.S. Dollar Slump? [View article]
    "Despite being a currency strategist I am not convinced that a stronger yuan will help the average American very much. What happened to the US in the 2005-2008 period when the yuan strengthened against the dollar by 20-25% ? Nothing and at the end of 2008 the US trade deficit with China was even greater than it had been in early 2005."

    Good point, but for a different take:
    Sep 15, 2010. 02:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Dollar Coin: Two Sides of the Reserve Dollar [View article]
    Great summation. Complex subject made clear and succinct.
    Nov 8, 2009. 03:10 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Three Signs It's Time to Buy the U.S. Dollar [View article]
    Great article Mr. Chandler. Thanks for sharing your insights. Please keep the analysis coming.
    Aug 7, 2009. 01:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Dollar Watch: Race to Debase? [View article]
    Mr. Moon,

    You wrote "the Fed has played a loose money policy since the 70s."

    Really? In the early 80's the effective Fed Funds Rate was nearly 20%. What is your definition of "loose"?

    On Jul 31 11:59 PM Moon Kil Woong wrote:

    > Indeed their intentions to provide a strong dollar do not prove salient.
    > It is quite clear that the US government has engaged in completely
    > reckless and unustainable spending for decades, the Fed has played
    > a loose money policy since the 70s, and the Fed is currently and
    > purposefully depreciating the dollar. No wonder people are skeptical
    > that the US dollar will hold its value.
    > Although Congress just means well when running mass deficits year
    > in and year out, I would say the Fed's actions are 100% pure in their
    > intent to depricate the dollar and has been that way for ages. We
    > can debate as to why (political pressure, ignorance, etc.) but we
    > can't argue the fact: The Fed is a squanderer not a protector of
    > value and has always been so.
    > Their actions run 100% counter to their mandate. Perhaps that's why
    > they are rated as the worst public institution by the average American
    > even though they deny that as well. Orwell couldn't even conceive
    > the level of doublespeak the Fed churns out year after year. Anyway,
    > if you ask me dollar debasement is methodical and purposeful in my
    > book.
    Aug 1, 2009. 12:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why China's New Colonialism Should Precipitate a Crisis [View article]
    Mr. Chandler,
    I found your article informed, insightful and objective. I think it's likely the people responding emotionally and dismissively to your words are heavily invested in an asset (probably gold) that doesn't benefit from the scenario you suggest. Hyper-inflation, the devaluation of the dollar, perhaps even further economic crisis in the U.S. is what some of them may be hoping for. Some seem attached to an ideology or world view. In any case, they seem threatened by your ideas and that says a lot about their bias and their rationality.
    Jul 31, 2009. 10:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why China's New Colonialism Should Precipitate a Crisis [View article]
    Another gold bug with his panties in a bunch.

    On Jul 26 07:17 PM jt wrote:

    > " Its currency is not convertible and is in no position to rival
    > the dollar"
    > That is as one-sided a pro-dollar, pro-administration, pro-bigbankster
    > piece of WashingtonianWallSt. economic propagandist crap as I've
    > read recently.
    > That's not to say China doesn't have its problems. But the dollar
    > is the deadliest piece of the entire fiat fraud with which the WallSt
    > Banksters and their Intl Bankster Cartel Family have defrauded and
    > robbed not only the working class of this country, but of the world.
    > To call it "strong" or especially to imply that it is "stronger"
    > than any other fiat currency is simply to restate the lie that has
    > made that Criminal Clan wealthy beyond all human imaginings at our
    > expense.
    > In fact, the dollar's only strength now is the strength of the lies
    > that surround it...their ability to deceive "the peoples" that there
    > is ANYthing backing it but the promises of superwealthy and superpowerful
    > conscience-less criminal scumbags who don't care one drop of sweat
    > about them NOR have ANY plans whatsoever to repay the absolutely
    > ungodly debt they own them nor make good on or take responsiblity
    > for the financial fraud that backs the dollar (as in $600-700 Trillion
    > or more of derivative debt / bad bets) that they have perpetrated
    > on them for the purpose of putting pretty lipstick on the green paper
    > piggy that they can create for their own use with absolutely NO oversight
    > from the American people, nor even by their elected representatives!!
    > But that time is coming to an end soon, when the peoples will continue
    > to listen to and believe the lies. And then authors like this one
    > and the rest of his ilk can pen all the "strong-dollar" "weak ROW"
    > spin they want. But the ROW...the Rest Of the then will
    > all know the lie, and in fact, will reveal the fact that they've
    > known it was a lie for a long time. Hope y'all have your wealth
    > in something other than (Nothing)Federal(About... (Absolutely-NOTHING-in...
    > Note(Paper)'s nothing but a lie. jt
    Jul 27, 2009. 01:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Economic Trifecta: Inflation, Devaluation, High Interest [View article]
    Thanks to the internet anybody with a computer can yell fire in a theater. Seeing your words in print is not the same as knowing what you're talking about. The lemmings rule.

    May 29, 2009
    The Big Inflation Scare

    Suddenly it seems as if everyone is talking about inflation. Stern opinion pieces warn that hyperinflation is just around the corner. And markets may be heeding these warnings: Interest rates on long-term government bonds are up, with fear of future inflation one possible reason for the interest-rate spike.

    But does the big inflation scare make any sense? Basically, no — with one caveat I’ll get to later. And I suspect that the scare is at least partly about politics rather than economics.

    First things first. It’s important to realize that there’s no hint of inflationary pressures in the economy right now. Consumer prices are lower now than they were a year ago, and wage increases have stalled in the face of high unemployment. Deflation, not inflation, is the clear and present danger.

    So if prices aren’t rising, why the inflation worries? Some claim that the Federal Reserve is printing lots of money, which must be inflationary, while others claim that budget deficits will eventually force the U.S. government to inflate away its debt.

    The first story is just wrong. The second could be right, but isn’t.

    Now, it’s true that the Fed has taken unprecedented actions lately. More specifically, it has been buying lots of debt both from the government and from the private sector, and paying for these purchases by crediting banks with extra reserves. And in ordinary times, this would be highly inflationary: banks, flush with reserves, would increase loans, which would drive up demand, which would push up prices.

    But these aren’t ordinary times. Banks aren’t lending out their extra reserves. They’re just sitting on them — in effect, they’re sending the money right back to the Fed. So the Fed isn’t really printing money after all.

    Still, don’t such actions have to be inflationary sooner or later? No. The Bank of Japan, faced with economic difficulties not too different from those we face today, purchased debt on a huge scale between 1997 and 2003. What happened to consumer prices? They fell.

    All in all, much of the current inflation discussion calls to mind what happened during the early years of the Great Depression when many influential people were warning about inflation even as prices plunged. As the British economist Ralph Hawtrey wrote, “Fantastic fears of inflation were expressed. That was to cry, Fire, Fire in Noah’s Flood.” And he went on, “It is after depression and unemployment have subsided that inflation becomes dangerous.”

    Is there a risk that we’ll have inflation after the economy recovers? That’s the claim of those who look at projections that federal debt may rise to more than 100 percent of G.D.P. and say that America will eventually have to inflate away that debt — that is, drive up prices so that the real value of the debt is reduced.

    Such things have happened in the past. For example, France ultimately inflated away much of the debt it incurred while fighting World War I.

    But more modern examples are lacking. Over the past two decades, Belgium, Canada and, of course, Japan have all gone through episodes when debt exceeded 100 percent of G.D.P. And the United States itself emerged from World War II with debt exceeding 120 percent of G.D.P. In none of these cases did governments resort to inflation to resolve their problems.

    So is there any reason to think that inflation is coming? Some economists have argued for moderate inflation as a deliberate policy, as a way to encourage lending and reduce private debt burdens. I’m sympathetic to these arguments and made a similar case for Japan in the 1990s. But the case for inflation never made headway with Japanese policy makers then, and there’s no sign it’s getting traction with U.S. policy makers now.

    All of this raises the question: If inflation isn’t a real risk, why all the claims that it is?

    Well, as you may have noticed, economists sometimes disagree. And big disagreements are especially likely in weird times like the present, when many of the normal rules no longer apply.

    But it’s hard to escape the sense that the current inflation fear-mongering is partly political, coming largely from economists who had no problem with deficits caused by tax cuts but suddenly became fiscal scolds when the government started spending money to rescue the economy. And their goal seems to be to bully the Obama administration into abandoning those rescue efforts.

    Needless to say, the president should not let himself be bullied. The economy is still in deep trouble and needs continuing help.

    Yes, we have a long-run budget problem, and we need to start laying the groundwork for a long-run solution. But when it comes to inflation, the only thing we have to fear is inflation fear itself.

    Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
    Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map
    May 30, 2009. 11:31 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment