Katy Delay's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/49905/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/236631/comments?source=feed#comment-1308188 1308188 Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:43:49 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/48674/comments?source=feed#comment-97455 97455 Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:09:23 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/48674/comments?source=feed#comment-97454 97454 Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:09:19 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/47419/comments?source=feed#comment-96290 96290
What if, without the Fed, the economy would have created less money supply, but the figure the central bank was targeting, even though not high in the abstract, was above that need? You might not get Weimar, but you'd still have an inflationary scenario that wouldn't appear on your anyone's radar screen.

In other words, inflationary purchasing media is created when the money supply is excessive relative to production (or some such factor). You cannot look only at money supply in a vacuum, and make any interpretation about whether it's appropriate, excessive, or insufficient.

The same principle applies to the CPI. Prices might even remain stable (which they are not) or be falling; but even stable or falling they might be inflationary compared to what they should be. For example, technology and productivity advancements should decrease our CPI, but we don't know by how much. If that figure is high, then even 2 percent CPI increase could represent 5 percent inflation in the true sense of the term, i.e. inflationary purchasing media in circulation.
]]> Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:52:29 -0400
What if, without the Fed, the economy would have created less money supply, but the figure the central bank was targeting, even though not high in the abstract, was above that need? You might not get Weimar, but you'd still have an inflationary scenario that wouldn't appear on your anyone's radar screen.

In other words, inflationary purchasing media is created when the money supply is excessive relative to production (or some such factor). You cannot look only at money supply in a vacuum, and make any interpretation about whether it's appropriate, excessive, or insufficient.

The same principle applies to the CPI. Prices might even remain stable (which they are not) or be falling; but even stable or falling they might be inflationary compared to what they should be. For example, technology and productivity advancements should decrease our CPI, but we don't know by how much. If that figure is high, then even 2 percent CPI increase could represent 5 percent inflation in the true sense of the term, i.e. inflationary purchasing media in circulation.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/44689/comments?source=feed#comment-94064 94064
"You can take gold out of the standard, but you can't take the standard out of gold." - Katy Delay

In other words, gold may not be the official standard bearer in the eyes of the central bankers, but it will always be so for the people. And that's just the way it is, folks.]]> Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:18:50 -0400
"You can take gold out of the standard, but you can't take the standard out of gold." - Katy Delay

In other words, gold may not be the official standard bearer in the eyes of the central bankers, but it will always be so for the people. And that's just the way it is, folks.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/38505/comments?source=feed#comment-88864 88864
The public is concerned with (1). The Federal Reserve board members are concerned with both (1) and (2), but mainly with (2), because they believe they control the supply of purchasing media and prefer core numbers because these do not include price increases caused by factors outside the Fed's "control." (Whether their efforts to control the money supply are efficacious or deleterious is a discussion for another day.)

The market is concerned with both, because players are in the business of making money, which business depends on what both the public and the Fed board members do.

Economists would do well to invent another word for either (1) or (2) so as to be more clear. Their semantic slight-of-tongue makes one wonder just what their real intent is, i.e. whether it is to clarify or to confuse. Surely they know the difference... don't they?]]> Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:11:29 -0400
The public is concerned with (1). The Federal Reserve board members are concerned with both (1) and (2), but mainly with (2), because they believe they control the supply of purchasing media and prefer core numbers because these do not include price increases caused by factors outside the Fed's "control." (Whether their efforts to control the money supply are efficacious or deleterious is a discussion for another day.)

The market is concerned with both, because players are in the business of making money, which business depends on what both the public and the Fed board members do.

Economists would do well to invent another word for either (1) or (2) so as to be more clear. Their semantic slight-of-tongue makes one wonder just what their real intent is, i.e. whether it is to clarify or to confuse. Surely they know the difference... don't they?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/38520/comments?source=feed#comment-88860 88860 Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:01:42 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/38520/comments?source=feed#comment-88859 88859 Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:00:44 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/35568/comments?source=feed#comment-86215 86215
sybilstar.blogspot.com...

To raise or lower rates now would be a catastrophe. See my reasoning at the above link.]]> Tue, 15 May 2007 15:05:24 -0400
sybilstar.blogspot.com...

To raise or lower rates now would be a catastrophe. See my reasoning at the above link.]]>