These numbers still indicate malaise. I wouldn't plow headlong into equities based on a number like this. There just won't be enough people out there with what they consider meaningful employment that would encourage them to go out and spend.
However, if you want to go headlong into equities because you think QE3 is on the horizon, or Holland will turn the tide in Europe to get the ECB to do QE3 for BB, then that's another reason all together. Just keep an eye on the structure of the CB action if such an action occurs, because you will need to time an exit if you really want to benefit from the runup.
No. You are confusing issues. A voluntary transaction is about engaging in trade in an attempt to learn about greater productivity. Such as an investment. Just because a gov regulates disclosures does not mean the disclosures guarantee a better outcome with regards to the goal of a voluntary transaction.
Slavery is about a forced transaction. Its about looting someones labor at a 100% tax rate and a 100% regulation rate.
I can understand having the goals of having a gov regulate things so that nothing ever goes wrong, but goals are not evidence that you actually have a way of using gov to make that goal occur. The only way for a gov to regulate a voluntary transaction with the result of a better outcome is for gov to have superior market/production knowledge. Now, where is it going to get that? It can only get it from the populace, and if they already had it, there would be no reason to give it to the gov. The goals of that additional market knowledge would already have been achieved.
The only thing a gov can be granted is force, but force is dangerous and if you don't limit gov then that force will attract special interest that will then use it to subsidize themselves with your labor and my labor.
The reason we hear the constant complaining about the failure of regulatory, monetary, fiscal policy, etc, etc is because we have assigned gov a task based on what we hope it can do rather than what it can do. We have allowed it to attempt the regulation of voluntary transactions in the hopes of making those transactions have better outcomes, and the result has been worse outcomes, because all this has done is create the incentives for gov force to be captured for the purpose of subsidies (wealth transfers).
Gov can only regulate what the society can grant the gov to regulate. Gov can regulate with regards to force (and its attached fraud), because the society can give the gov a grant of force. Thus a gov can regulate involuntary transactions between people by using its legitimate force via its grant to repel or deter illegitimate force. In other words, the gov can regulate crimes, and crimes are actions that arise from one person forcibly harming another.
What a gov cannot regulate are things you choose to do to yourself (like taking drugs) or voluntary transactions between two individuals (like the voluntary surrending of capital for an investment or purchase). The only way a gov could regulate these things is by the populace giving the gov a grant of special market knowledge that would allow the gov to prevent transactions that resulted in mistakes. Now think about that. If a populace had this knowledge to begin with, then why would they need to give it to a gov.
A gov can't regulate with regards to voluntary transactions. All it has is a grant of force, and force can't be used to regulate the voluntary. In voluntary transactions, the regulations for people (which include business, because you can't have a business without a person) are from other people and higher laws (the laws of physics). Business doesn't regulate itself. Its customers and other businesses regulate it, and these regulations are the harshest of all. When gov regulates business, bad businesses are bailed out. When private regulations regulate, bad businesses go away. If fraud were a longer term busienss strategy, then no business anywhere would ever fail. You could invest in any stock and it would soar to the heavens. Clearly, market regulations for voluntary transactions are the only ones that work.
You let gov try to regulate voluntary transactions, and all you do is create the economic incentives for tyranny. The result is endless complaining about special interest buying politicians, CBs getting monetary policy wrong, and the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer.
If you give gov power to regulate an economy (something it can't do), then you create the incentives for the regulators to be purchased. Its called diffuse costs and disbursed benefits. That's why you see unions buying politicians. The very politicians that will sit across from the union when it comes time to negotiate their compensation. How do you think those negotiations will go?
Gov was subsidizing purchasers of real estate. The result was real estate price went up and up, making people think real estate was the place to be and that the economy was growing. Even the FDIC gave lower risk weightings to the real estate classes that blew up in everyones face. In fact, in 2006 when the FDIC came out with guidance about real estate, the political pressure was so intense, that they dared not change the rules. By then the bubble was firmly in place, and the FDIC didn't want to be seen as the ones bursting the bubble. If they had really been worth their salt, in 2001, they would have limited the concentrations, but they didn't.
Spread a bunch of marbles out on a mattress, and then but an engine block in the middle of that mattress. What happens to the marbles. Sure private debt followed after these asset classes, but it was because public policy was paying them to.
If you think it is useful, it would be interesting to see some data on timing of maturities for EU debt, say by country and by month. This could give insight to when the political debates get hot and heavy as they approach periods of heavy debt maturity that they worry about refinancing. As such, the pressure will get extreme at these points to expand LTRO or just allow the ECB to start buying gov debt outright.
Remember a central bank is a subsidy for financial markets. When the subsidies are threatened, financial markets take a hit. When the subsidies flow, the financial markets soar.
Another thought on Japan. The Japanese have a concept known as Uchi-Soto. It basically says inside is good, and outside is bad. So Japan good, outside is bad. The Japanese will go to the mattresses for Japan. They will buy gov debt (a built in bid) and protect Japan with their last breath. I wonder if the EU (a collection of typically at odds people) will feel the same about the EU.
Spanish Debt, The European Central Bank, And The Maginot Line [View article]
"Debt is also an asset."
Well, a better way to say this, is debt CAN be an asset. The ultimate test of an asset is collectability or rather consumability. If something bad happens that eliminates its collectability, the you write it off, and the result is you gave up your labor for nothing. In other words it was a waste of time.
Why 'New York Times' Economist Paul Krugman Is Partly Right But Mostly Wrong [View article]
Really? How many people does it take to make a company where if one part saves money, the other part loses its livelihood? Within a company, is each member competing with each other? Does a company have autonomous economic actors, or is a (successful) company centrally planned?
If the thing to which you analogize a country does not exhibit country-like behavior, how can it serve as an analytic model.?
The Way Out For Greece, The EU And Global Markets [View article]
"nothing is perfectly black or white in this world"
Doesn't that mean that it is "black and white" that nothing is "black and white", but if one thing is black and white, then that means you can't say "nothing" is black and white.
Housing Prices: A Rebuttal To Barry Ritholtz [View article]
I'm opposed to monopolized money because it retards economic growth. Its the reason the previous central banks in the US failed. Since govs are price blind they will never produce as well as those that are price sensitive. Thats the reason the fed failed in regulating the banks, and why they failed in preventing the loss of 8 million jobs.
If you could show a period in US history where there was no gov involvement, then you could totally attribute recessions to the markets, but you can't. If you could show that Cuba had a larger economy than the US, then that would be more compelling, but you can't.
If we continue with your policies we are looking at years and years of malaise with more recessions. It's the history of the world. It's a shame you won't learn from it.
Housing Prices: A Rebuttal To Barry Ritholtz [View article]
And neither have you. You are still confusing specious reasoning with evidence. You cant do controlled expirements. You are still making the rain maker argument. I have no plans to agree with your advocacy of tyranny based on that.
Initial Jobless Claims: 367K vs. 366K consensus (prior week revised to 368K from 365K). Continuing claims -61K to 3.22M. [View news story]
However, if you want to go headlong into equities because you think QE3 is on the horizon, or Holland will turn the tide in Europe to get the ECB to do QE3 for BB, then that's another reason all together. Just keep an eye on the structure of the CB action if such an action occurs, because you will need to time an exit if you really want to benefit from the runup.
Do Panic Over Europe [View article]
Slavery is about a forced transaction. Its about looting someones labor at a 100% tax rate and a 100% regulation rate.
I can understand having the goals of having a gov regulate things so that nothing ever goes wrong, but goals are not evidence that you actually have a way of using gov to make that goal occur. The only way for a gov to regulate a voluntary transaction with the result of a better outcome is for gov to have superior market/production knowledge. Now, where is it going to get that? It can only get it from the populace, and if they already had it, there would be no reason to give it to the gov. The goals of that additional market knowledge would already have been achieved.
The only thing a gov can be granted is force, but force is dangerous and if you don't limit gov then that force will attract special interest that will then use it to subsidize themselves with your labor and my labor.
The reason we hear the constant complaining about the failure of regulatory, monetary, fiscal policy, etc, etc is because we have assigned gov a task based on what we hope it can do rather than what it can do. We have allowed it to attempt the regulation of voluntary transactions in the hopes of making those transactions have better outcomes, and the result has been worse outcomes, because all this has done is create the incentives for gov force to be captured for the purpose of subsidies (wealth transfers).
Do Panic Over Europe [View article]
What a gov cannot regulate are things you choose to do to yourself (like taking drugs) or voluntary transactions between two individuals (like the voluntary surrending of capital for an investment or purchase). The only way a gov could regulate these things is by the populace giving the gov a grant of special market knowledge that would allow the gov to prevent transactions that resulted in mistakes. Now think about that. If a populace had this knowledge to begin with, then why would they need to give it to a gov.
A gov can't regulate with regards to voluntary transactions. All it has is a grant of force, and force can't be used to regulate the voluntary. In voluntary transactions, the regulations for people (which include business, because you can't have a business without a person) are from other people and higher laws (the laws of physics). Business doesn't regulate itself. Its customers and other businesses regulate it, and these regulations are the harshest of all. When gov regulates business, bad businesses are bailed out. When private regulations regulate, bad businesses go away. If fraud were a longer term busienss strategy, then no business anywhere would ever fail. You could invest in any stock and it would soar to the heavens. Clearly, market regulations for voluntary transactions are the only ones that work.
You let gov try to regulate voluntary transactions, and all you do is create the economic incentives for tyranny. The result is endless complaining about special interest buying politicians, CBs getting monetary policy wrong, and the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer.
Do Panic Over Europe [View article]
Gov was subsidizing purchasers of real estate. The result was real estate price went up and up, making people think real estate was the place to be and that the economy was growing. Even the FDIC gave lower risk weightings to the real estate classes that blew up in everyones face. In fact, in 2006 when the FDIC came out with guidance about real estate, the political pressure was so intense, that they dared not change the rules. By then the bubble was firmly in place, and the FDIC didn't want to be seen as the ones bursting the bubble. If they had really been worth their salt, in 2001, they would have limited the concentrations, but they didn't.
Spread a bunch of marbles out on a mattress, and then but an engine block in the middle of that mattress. What happens to the marbles. Sure private debt followed after these asset classes, but it was because public policy was paying them to.
Do Panic Over Europe [View article]
If you think it is useful, it would be interesting to see some data on timing of maturities for EU debt, say by country and by month. This could give insight to when the political debates get hot and heavy as they approach periods of heavy debt maturity that they worry about refinancing. As such, the pressure will get extreme at these points to expand LTRO or just allow the ECB to start buying gov debt outright.
Remember a central bank is a subsidy for financial markets. When the subsidies are threatened, financial markets take a hit. When the subsidies flow, the financial markets soar.
Another thought on Japan. The Japanese have a concept known as Uchi-Soto. It basically says inside is good, and outside is bad. So Japan good, outside is bad. The Japanese will go to the mattresses for Japan. They will buy gov debt (a built in bid) and protect Japan with their last breath. I wonder if the EU (a collection of typically at odds people) will feel the same about the EU.
Spanish Debt, The European Central Bank, And The Maginot Line [View article]
Well, a better way to say this, is debt CAN be an asset. The ultimate test of an asset is collectability or rather consumability. If something bad happens that eliminates its collectability, the you write it off, and the result is you gave up your labor for nothing. In other words it was a waste of time.
Why 'New York Times' Economist Paul Krugman Is Partly Right But Mostly Wrong [View article]
Why 'New York Times' Economist Paul Krugman Is Partly Right But Mostly Wrong [View article]
Why 'New York Times' Economist Paul Krugman Is Partly Right But Mostly Wrong [View article]
If the thing to which you analogize a country does not exhibit country-like behavior, how can it serve as an analytic model.?
The Way Out For Greece, The EU And Global Markets [View article]
Doesn't that mean that it is "black and white" that nothing is "black and white", but if one thing is black and white, then that means you can't say "nothing" is black and white.
There (Still) Is No Crisis In Spain, Or Europe [View article]
http://bbc.in/J6uJ6h
U.S. Economy: 4 Simple Reasons Recession Lies Ahead [View article]
Housing Prices: A Rebuttal To Barry Ritholtz [View article]
If you could show a period in US history where there was no gov involvement, then you could totally attribute recessions to the markets, but you can't. If you could show that Cuba had a larger economy than the US, then that would be more compelling, but you can't.
If we continue with your policies we are looking at years and years of malaise with more recessions. It's the history of the world. It's a shame you won't learn from it.
Housing Prices: A Rebuttal To Barry Ritholtz [View article]
Yet Another One For The Materialists? [View article]