Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 05, 2015, 04:17:55 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
86837 Posts in 2278 Topics by 1069 Members
Latest Member: ctelerant
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Money, the Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar & other currencies, Gold/Silver
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] Print
Author Topic: Money, the Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar & other currencies, Gold/Silver  (Read 114263 times)
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 737


« Reply #800 on: March 09, 2015, 10:09:45 AM »

As Katrina approaches, it's a brilliant sunny day in New Orleans.  How could anything go wrong?  Why - the birds are singing, the sun is shining, all those Chicken Littles predicting a devastating storm of epic proportions sure are idiots, aren't they?  Let's go party in the French Quarter!

We know how that ended.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #801 on: March 10, 2015, 10:14:51 AM »

What did we predict?  From my point of view, we predicted a high risk of inflation AFTER demand and velocity return to the economy.  But that hasn't happened.  We predict that that it will difficult to phase out years of monetary insanity.  That has proved true.  Even Krugman expresses fear of returning interest rates to normal after all this phenomenal, artificial growth.  What specifically did we predict?  That pouring more gas in the tank won't repair the three flat tires we are riding on, nor get us where we wish to go.  What else?  That low interest rates helps one side while obliterating the other, namely savings and new investment in the economy.  We were right on that!

What did Krugman, who knows better, omit?

We now have the worst workforce participation rate since women widely entered the workforce.  It is the worst workforce participation rate EVER for men, since before caveman days.  And now the lowest workforce participation for women in modern time.  Obama-Krugman policies also caused the worst startup rate in our lifetimes for businesses with the capability of growing to employ future generations, leaving behind economic expectations on a par with the Soviet Union in its last decade - if we don't change course.

By the end of the Obama era, to put a number on it, 100 million adults in the US won't work, out of 244 million.  That is 41% real unemployment as the intentionally deceitful Nobel prize winner tells you we are now hitting full employment.  http://rt.com/usa/jobs-us-employment-welfare-749/

If the economy really was back on rock-solid footing, why would an award winning economist want interest rates held artificially lower even longer yet?  That makes no sense.

Nothing is holding up this economy and holding down overall price levels more than the fracking revolution that all these leftists still vehemently oppose.  Yet they blabber on about their successes.

The economic issue they ran on when they took political power was to address and correct income inequality, not to fight against 1-2% inflation.  So they stepped on economic growth in the pursuit of fairness.  But everything they did made the disparities grow even wider.  Go figure.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33620


« Reply #802 on: March 10, 2015, 12:02:29 PM »

Pretty good Doug  grin

but , , , I have come to think Scott Grannis has it right and that I (ahem, we?) did not.  What we saw as vast printing of money was not and that important elements of our hypothesis may have been wrong.

Of course I get the declining work force participation rate, but OTOH there is this:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/03/10/job-openings-rise-to-the-highest-level-in-14-years/?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth
« Last Edit: March 10, 2015, 12:26:21 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33620


« Reply #803 on: March 13, 2015, 12:18:41 PM »

________________________________________
The Producer Price Index Declined 0.5% in February To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 3/13/2015

The Producer Price Index (PPI) declined 0.5% in February, coming in below the consensus expected gain of 0.3%. Producer prices are down 0.7% versus a year ago.
Food prices fell 1.6% in February while energy prices were unchanged. Producer prices excluding food and energy declined 0.5% in February, led by service prices.
In the past year, prices for services are up 1.3%, while prices for goods are down 4.3%. Private capital equipment prices declined 0.3% in February but are up 0.7% in the past year.

Prices for intermediate processed goods declined 0.6% in February, and are down 6.5% versus a year ago. Prices for intermediate unprocessed goods fell 3.9% in February, and are down 25.0% versus a year ago.

Implications: If you’re looking for inflation, you’re not going to find it in producer prices, at least not yet. Producer prices fell 0.5% in February following a 0.8% drop in January. As a result, producer prices are down 0.7% from a year ago. The huge drop in energy prices since mid-2014 is the key reason producer prices are down in the past year. Energy prices are down 22.4% from a year ago, while everything excluding energy is up 1%. This suggests that when oil prices stabilize for a prolonged period of time that the overall producer price index will start rising again. However, that didn’t happen in February as prices for services fell 0.5%, the largest one-month decline since the new series began in 2009. The decline in services was led by trade services, which measure changes in the margins received by wholesalers and retailers. Prices for goods also fell in February, and have now declined for eight consecutive months. Most of the decline in goods prices in February can be attributed to food, which fell 1.6%. The new version of the producer prices index, which includes services, appears to be much more volatile than the old one, which suggests analysts and investors should not reach conclusions based on short-term gyrations in the numbers, including the fact that overall prices are now down from a year ago. Monetary policy remains loose and will continue to be loose even when the Federal Reserve starts raising rates this June. For this reason, these rate hikes will not hurt the economy. Fed policy will not become tight for at least a few years. Counter-intuitively, higher short term rates may boost lending as potential borrowers hurry up their plans to avoid even higher interest rates further down the road. In other words, the Plow Horse economy won’t stop when the Fed shifts gears. As a result, we believe producer price inflation will soon go positive again and then gradually move higher from there. In the meantime, prices further up the production pipeline remain subdued. Prices for intermediate processed goods are down 6.5% in the past year while prices for unprocessed goods are down 25%. Regardless, with the labor market improving, we still believe the Fed is on track to start raising rates in June.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 737


« Reply #804 on: March 22, 2015, 09:14:34 PM »

One Last Look At The Real Economy Before It Implodes - Part 3

Wednesday, 18 March 2015    Brandon Smith  www.alt-market.com


In the previous installments of this series, we discussed the hidden and often unspoken crisis brewing within the employment market, as well as in personal debt. The primary consequence being a collapse in overall consumer demand, something which we are at this very moment witnessing in the macro-picture of the fiscal situation around the world. Lack of real production and lack of sustainable employment options result in a lack of savings, an over-dependency on debt and welfare, the destruction of grass-roots entrepreneurship, a conflated and disingenuous representation of gross domestic product, and ultimately an economic system devoid of structural integrity — a hollow shell of a system, vulnerable to even the slightest shocks.

This lack of structural integrity and stability is hidden from the general public quite deliberately by way of central bank money creation that enables government debt spending, which is counted toward GDP despite the fact that it is NOT true production (debt creation is a negation of true production and historically results in a degradation of the overall economy as well as monetary buying power, rather than progress). Government debt spending also disguises the real state of poverty within a system through welfare and entitlements. The U.S. poverty level is at record highs, hitting previous records set 50 years ago during Lyndon Johnson’s administration. The record-breaking rise in poverty has also occurred despite 50 years of the so called “war on poverty,” a shift toward American socialism that was a continuation of the policies launched by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 'New Deal'.

The shift toward a welfare state is the exact reason why, despite record poverty and a 23 percent true unemployment rate (as discussed here), we do not yet see the kind of soup lines and rampant indigence witnessed during the Great Depression. Today, EBT cards and other welfare programs hide modern soup lines in plain sight. It should be noted that the record 20 percent of U.S. households now on food stamps are still technically contributing to GDP. That’s because government statistics make no distinction between normal grocery consumption and consumption created artificially through debt-generated welfare.

This third installment of our economic series will be the most difficult.  We will examine the issue of government debt, including how true debt is disguised from the public and how this debt is a warning of a coming implosion in our overall structure.  National debt is perhaps one of the most manipulated fields of economics, and the layers surrounding what our country truly owes to foreign creditors and central banks are many.  I believe this confusing array of disinformation is designed to discourage average Americans from pursuing the facts.  Here are the facts all the same, for those who have the patience...

First, it is important to debunk the mainstream lies surrounding what constitutes national debt.

“Official” national debt as of 2015 is currently reported at more than $18 trillion. That means that under Barack Obama and with the aid of the private Federal Reserve, U.S. debt has nearly doubled since 2008 — quite an accomplishment in only seven years’ time. But this is not the whole picture.

Official GDP numbers published for mainstream consumption do NOT include annual liabilities generated by programs such as Social Security and Medicare. These liabilities are veiled through the efforts of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which reports on what it calls “debts” rather than on the true fiscal gap. Through the efforts of economists like Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University, Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale, understanding of the fiscal gap (the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts) is slowly growing within more mainstream circles.

The debt created through the fiscal gap increases, for example, because of the Social Security program - since government taxes the population for Social Security but uses that tax money to fund other programs or to pay off other outstanding debts. In other words, the government collects "taxes" with the promise of paying them back in the future through Social Security, but it spends that money instead of saving it for the use it was supposedly intended.

The costs of such unfunded liabilities within programs like Social Security and Medicare accumulate as the government continues to kick the can down the road instead of changing policy to cover costs. This accumulation is reflected in the Alternative Financial Scenario analysis, which the CBO used to publish every year but for some reason stopped publishing in 2013. Here is a presentation on the AFS by the St. Louis branch of the Federal Reserve. Take note that the crowd laughs at the prospect of the government continuing to “can kick” economic policy changes in order to avoid handling current debt obligations, yet that is exactly what has happened over the past several years.

Using the AFS report, Kotlikoff and other more honest economists estimate real U.S. national debt to stand at about $205 trillion.

When the exposure of these numbers began to take hold in the mainstream, media pundits and establishment propagandists set in motion a campaign to spin public perception, claiming that the vast majority of this debt was actually “projected debt” to be paid over the course of 70 years or more and, thus, not important in terms of today’s debt concerns. While some estimates of national debt include future projections of unfunded liabilities in certain sectors this far ahead, the spin masters' fundamental argument is in fact a disingenuous redirection of the facts.

According to the calculations of economists like Chris Cox and Bill Archer, unfunded liabilities are adding about $8 trillion in total debt annually. That is $8 trillion dollars per year not accounted for in official national debt stats.  For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion of this amount.

Kotlikoff’s analysis shows that this annual hidden debt accumulation has resulted in a current total of $205 trillion. This amount is not the unfunded liabilities added up in all future years. This is the present value of the unfunded liabilities, discounted to today.

How is the U.S. currently covering such massive obligations on top of the already counted existing budget costs? It’s not.

Taxes collected yearly in the range of $3.7 trillion are nowhere near enough to cover the amount, and no amount of future taxes would make a dent either. This is why the Grace Commission, established during the Ronald Reagan presidency, found that not a single penny of your taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service is going toward the funding of actual government programs. In fact, all new taxes are being used to pay off the ever increasing interest on current debts.

For those who argue that an increase in taxation is the cure, more than 102 million people are unemployed within the U.S. today. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Current Population Survey (CPS), 148 million are employed; about 20% of these are considered part-time workers (about 30 million people). Around 16 million full time workers are employed by state and local government (meaning they are a drain on the system whether they know it or not).  Only 43 percent of all U.S. households are considered “middle class,” the section of the public where most taxes are derived. In the best-case scenario, we have about 120 million people paying a majority of taxes toward U.S. debt obligations, while nearly as many are adding to those debt obligations through welfare programs or have the potential to add to those obligations in the near future if they do not find work due to the high unemployment rate that no one at the BLS wants to acknowledge.

Looking at reality, one finds a swiftly shrinking middle class paying for an ever larger welfare class.  Do the math, and an honest person will admit that no matter how much taxes increase, they will still never make up for the lack of adequate taxpayers.

Another dishonest argument given to dismiss concerns of national debt is the lie that Domestic Net Worth in the U.S. far outweighs our debts owed, and this somehow negates the issue. Domestic Net Worth is calculated using Gross Domestic Assets, public and private. It's interesting, however, that Domestic Net Worth counts 'Debt Capital' as an asset, just as GDP counts debt creation as production.  Debt Capital is the “capital” businesses and governments raise by taking out loans. This capital (debt) is then counted as an asset toward Domestic Net Worth.

Yes, that’s right, private and national debts are “assets.” And mainstream economists argue that these debts (errr… assets) offset our existing debts. This is the unicorn, Neverland, Care Bear magic of establishment economics, folks. It’s truly a magnificent thing to behold.

Ironically, debt capital, like the official national debt, does not include unfunded liabilities. If it did, mainstream talking heads could claim an even vaster supply of “assets” (debts) that offset our liabilities.

This situation is clearly unsustainable. The only people who seem to argue that it is sustainable are disinformation agents with something to gain (government favors and pay) and government cronies with something to lose (public trust and their positions of petty authority).

With overall Treasury investments static for some foreign central banks and dwindling in others, the only other options are to print indefinitely and at ever greater levels, or to default. For decades, the Federal Reserve has been printing in order to keep the game afloat, and the American public has little to no idea how much fiat and debt the private institution has conjured in the process. Certainly, the amount of debt we see just in annual unfunded liabilities helps to explain why the dollar has lost 97 percent of its purchasing power since the Fed was established. Covering that much debt in the short term requires a constant flow of fiat, digital and paper.  Not only does REAL debt threaten our credit standing as a nation, it also threatens the value and full faith in the dollar.

The small glimpse into Fed operations we received during the limited TARP audit was enough to warrant serious concern, as a full audit would likely result in the exposure of total debt fraud, the immediate abandonment of U.S. Treasury investment, and the destruction of the dollar. Of course, all of that will eventually happen anyway...

I will discuss why this will take place sooner rather than later through the issues of Treasury bonds and the dollar in the fourth installment of this series. In the fifth installment, I will examine the many reasons why a deliberate program of destructive debt bubbles and currency devaluations actually benefits certain international financiers and elites with aspirations of complete globalization. And in the sixth and final installment, I will delve into practical solutions - and practical solutions only. In the meantime, I would like everyone to consider this:

No society or culture has ever successfully survived by disengaging itself from its own financial responsibilities and dumping them on future generations without falling from historical grace. Not one. Does anyone with any sense really believe that the U.S. is somehow immune to this reality?
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4496


« Reply #805 on: March 23, 2015, 09:01:28 AM »

Hi Objectivist.

Thanks for the article.

I see construction like crazy near me in NJ.  New shops stores etc.   The vast majority seem to be large chains and mega companies like Walmart, chipotles, dunken donuts, etc.  Many are manned by people with accents. 

It seems there are 2 economies.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #806 on: March 23, 2015, 11:11:04 AM »

The stock market success is NOT based on QE or our easy money policies, we are told, but when the Fed talks of ending the absurdity of zero interest rates, the market falls and when they talk of continuing it even longer, the market continues to rise. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33620


« Reply #807 on: May 08, 2015, 10:26:52 AM »



https://orders.cloudsna.com/chain?cid=MKT033949&eid=MKT045058&snaid=&step=start##AST03347
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33620


« Reply #808 on: May 11, 2015, 02:32:36 PM »

Monday Morning Outlook
________________________________________
The Fed: Under Attack To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 5/11/2015

Never before has the Federal Reserve been so large and so actively involved in the US financial system. The Fed’s balance sheet (at $4.4 trillion) is now 25% of GDP – four times larger than its 1952-2007 average.

Meanwhile, the Fed’s regulatory role in the banking system has grown, too. Smaller community banks have been squeezed by rules intended to make very large banks less likely to fail. Only in Washington, DC could they draw up rules designed to limit the big banks and end up making it easier for them to compete against the small banks.
The massive expansion in Fed power is a direct result of government’s response to the Panic of 2008. The Troubled Asset Relief Plan (TARP) implicitly blamed the panic on the banking system and made government the savior. President Bush told CNN in December 2008 “I have abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” This created an environment of regulatory overreach that is finally being noticed by Congress.

In fact, we have never seen so much attention being paid to Fed decisions and activity. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) is suggesting a law to bind monetary policy to a policy rule, like the Taylor Rule, which would make the likelihood and direction of the Fed’s policy changes much more predictable and transparent. If the Fed had followed the Taylor Rule in 2003-04, it would have never lowered interest rates to 1% and the US might have avoided the housing bubble altogether.

Another Senate idea, this one from a bipartisan duo of David Vitter (R-LA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), would decentralize authority at the Fed by making sure all the Senate-appointed governors had their own staff. Vitter and Warren would also make it tougher for the Fed to bailout banks and require a recorded vote on large fines for banks.

Yet another idea, this one from former Dallas Fed Bank President Richard Fisher, would end the New York Fed’s permanent seat on the committee that sets monetary policy. At present, the other Fed bank presidents rotate their membership every year while the NY president never loses his seat. So Fisher’s proposal would be a demotion for the bank president perceived most responsive to Wall Street and the biggest banks.

In addition, Congress is now investigating whether the Fed, including Janet Yellen herself, leaked valuable information about future decisions on monetary policy to Medley Global Advisors, a forecasting firm that trades in access, or at least the perception of access, to key political decision-makers.

And if the Fed thinks it’s getting lots of attention now, just wait a few years when short-term interest rates are higher. Last year, the Fed turned over close to $100 billion in interest earnings to the US Treasury Department. But when short rates go up, the Fed will be paying banks money that it used to pay the Treasury, just so the banks won’t lend their excess reserves.

Perhaps the worst part of all this is that it might call future policy decisions into question. For example, what if the Fed raises rates in June? We think that policy action is justified by economic fundamentals. But some investors might think Yellen was just trying to appease GOP lawmakers. So even making the “right” call can cause problems.
Free market supporters should be careful about casually treading on the independence of the Fed. But it’s easy to see why Congress is so focused – the larger and more active the Fed gets, the more attention it attracts.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33620


« Reply #809 on: May 14, 2015, 02:34:43 PM »

The Producer Price Index Declined 0.4% in April To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 5/14/2015

The Producer Price Index (PPI) declined 0.4% in April, coming in below the consensus expected gain of 0.1%. Producer prices are down 1.3% versus a year ago.
Energy prices dropped 2.9% in April while food prices fell 0.9%. Producer prices excluding food and energy declined 0.1%.
In the past year, prices for services are up 0.9%, while prices for goods are down 5.2%. Private capital equipment prices declined 0.3% in April but are up 0.1% in the past year.
Prices for intermediate processed goods declined 1.1% in April, and are down 7.6% versus a year ago. Prices for intermediate unprocessed goods increased 0.9% in April, but are down 26.7% versus a year ago.

Implications: Forget about producer prices for a minute. The most important economic news today was new claims for unemployment insurance dropping 1,000 last week to 264,000. The four week average declined to 272,000, the lowest level in 15 years. Continuing unemployment claims were unchanged at 2.23 million, also the lowest since 2000. These data point to another solid payroll number in May. On the inflation front, as Milton Friedman used to say, the relationship between monetary policy and inflation is long and variable. And in this cycle, it’s longer than usual. After several years of loose monetary policy, inflation is still not a problem for producers. The producer price index declined 0.4% in April, falling for the fifth time in the past six months. Food and energy prices, which are volatile, fell 0.9% and 2.9% respectively, in April. Energy prices are now down 24% versus a year ago, so it shouldn’t be any surprise that overall producer prices are down 1.3% from last year. But even prices outside the food and energy sectors remain relatively quiet for now. Service prices have increased 0.9% in the past year while “core” goods, which exclude food and energy, are up 0.4%. Given the extended period of loose monetary policy and the recent (partial) rebound in oil prices, we expect producer price inflation to be more of an issue in the year ahead. Other factors may play a role as well. For example, April price declines were also seen in trade, transportation and warehousing, which might be a temporary hangover from the West Coast port strikes. As a result, we expect inflation to pick up in the year ahead and should do so more quickly than most investors expect. In turn, this likely means higher bond yields and a more aggressive Fed than is right now priced into market expectations.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12509


« Reply #810 on: May 14, 2015, 02:44:17 PM »

Meanwhile, back in reality....

http://www.mybudget360.com/not-in-labor-force-one-third-americans-carry-rest-of-country-financially/


Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 737


« Reply #811 on: May 14, 2015, 04:14:02 PM »

The most important economic news today was new claims for unemployment insurance dropping 1,000 last week to 264,000. The four week average declined to 272,000, the lowest level in 15 years. Continuing unemployment claims were unchanged at 2.23 million, also the lowest since 2000. These data point to another solid payroll number in May.

Without even addressing the rest of the complete bulls**t that is Wesbury's analysis, the statement above is asinine.  He presents this as some sort of good news.  "another solid payroll number in May"?  REALLY???  There are over 92 MILLION working-age Americans who have DROPPED OFF THE UNEMPLOYMENT ROLLS.  THEY ARE NOT BEING COUNTED.  AS FAR AS WESBURY AND THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS ARE CONCERNED - THEY DON'T EXIST.  THE LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE IS THE LOWEST IT HAS BEEN SINCE 1978.  HOW IS THIS GOOD NEWS?
« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 04:15:48 PM by objectivist1 » Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 737


« Reply #812 on: May 18, 2015, 09:26:24 PM »

www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-18/san-francisco-fed-just-gave-green-light-june-rate-hike

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33620


« Reply #813 on: May 20, 2015, 11:57:58 AM »

BREAKING NEWS   Wednesday, May 20, 2015 10:32 AM EDT

5 Big Banks to Pay Billions and Plead Guilty in Currency and Interest Rate Cases

Adding another entry to Wall Street’s growing rap sheet, five big banks have agreed to pay more than $5 billion and plead guilty to multiple crimes related to manipulating foreign currencies and interest rates, federal and state authorities announced on Wednesday.

The Justice Department forced four of the banks — Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, and the Royal Bank of Scotland — to plead guilty to antitrust violations in the foreign exchange market as part of a scheme that padded the banks’ profits and enriched the traders who carried out the plot. The traders were supposed to be competitors, but much like companies that rigged the price of vitamins and automotive parts, they colluded to manipulate the largest and yet least regulated market in the financial world, where some $5 trillion changes hands every day.

Underscoring the collusive nature of their contact, which often occurred in online chat rooms, one group of traders called themselves “the cartel,” an-invitation only club where stakes were so high that a newcomer was warned “mess this up and sleep with one eye open.” To carry out the scheme, one trader would typically build a huge position in a currency and then unload it at a crucial moment, hoping to move prices. Traders at the other banks agreed to, as New York State’s financial regulator put it, “stay out of each other’s way.”

As part of the criminal deal with the Justice Department, a fifth bank, UBS, will plead guilty to manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor, a benchmark that underpins the cost of trillions of dollars in credit cards and other loans.

READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/business/dealbook/5-big-banks-to-pay-billions-and-plead-guilty-in-currency-and-interest-rate-cases.html?emc=edit_na_20150520





Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12509


« Reply #814 on: May 25, 2015, 04:36:04 PM »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11625098/HSBC-fears-world-recession-with-no-lifeboats-left.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33620


« Reply #815 on: May 25, 2015, 08:07:25 PM »

Interesting , , , and disconcerting.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12509


« Reply #816 on: May 25, 2015, 10:00:11 PM »

http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/why-most-gold-bugs-are-dead-wrong
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12509


« Reply #817 on: May 26, 2015, 03:51:57 AM »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11625406/The-world-is-drowning-in-debt-warns-Goldman-Sachs.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33620


« Reply #818 on: May 26, 2015, 08:06:09 AM »

Something to keep in mind , , ,
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #819 on: May 26, 2015, 11:18:27 AM »


It looks to me like Greenland and Libya are the main areas with workable debt ratios.  We should learn more about the healthcare system and entitlement guarantees in Benghazi...

Countries that have a good history of producing their own energy tend to have manageable debt, Russia, Norway, Saudi.  We could learn from that too.

If my religion forbids me from taking on egregious debt, I wonder if I can I opt out of participation in the US unfunded liabilities scheme.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33620


« Reply #820 on: May 26, 2015, 10:42:04 PM »

Inflation: Dormant, Not Dead To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 5/26/2015

Last month we explained why the dreaded threat of hyperinflation hasn’t materialized, and likely wouldn’t materialize, in spite of the huge expansion of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet the past several years, including QE1, 2, and 3.

The April inflation report, released Friday, underscored this theme. Consumer prices rose a tepid 0.1% in April and were down 0.2% from a year ago. With the exception of the Panic of 2008 and its immediate aftermath, that year-to-year decline was the lowest reading for inflation in 60 years.

However, this doesn’t mean the US is experiencing deflation, or that inflation is dead. Quite the contrary. We expect inflation to pick up over the next few years, faster and further than most investors anticipate.

To see why, just look at the details of the April report. Yes, the very same report some thought was proof that inflation would never return.

First off, inflation data has been dominated by energy prices, which are down 19.4% from a year ago. Excluding energy, consumer prices are up 1.8% in the past twelve months (the same if we exclude food and energy). But energy prices were not going to fall forever and have already bounced back somewhat. As a result, the underlying trend of consumer prices should move back toward the “ex-energy” measure in the year ahead – to roughly 2%, or more.

But there are other reasons to believe inflation outside the energy sector should pick up. Normally, lower energy prices, because they boost purchasing power outside of energy, lead to an increase in demand for non-energy goods and rising prices in these other sectors.

But the drop in energy prices has been so sharp, consumers appear to be taking their time deciding how to spend the windfall. At the same time, tax receipts have soared which has drained purchasing power from many consumers. This temporary dip in demand has a short-term effect on inflation measures.

But people don’t work for the heck of it; they work to generate purchasing power. And the gains from lower energy prices will eventually help sales in other sectors, which should also lead to higher prices in those sectors as well. We may be seeing signs of this already. In the past three months, “core” prices are up at a 2.6% annual rate and in the past two months they are up 2.9% annualized – the fastest pace in seven years.

In addition, housing costs, which make up almost one-third of overall consumer prices, continue to gradually accelerate. These prices were up 0.3% in 2009, 0.4% in 2010, then 1.9%, 2.2%, 2.5% and 2.9% from 2011 to 2014. In the past twelve months (thru April, they’re up 3%). Meanwhile, with home builders still constructing too few homes to meet population growth and scrappage rates, supply constraints should help generate even faster rent hikes in the year ahead.

The bottom line is that monetary policy is too loose. The Fed has kept short-term rates near zero for more than six years. The last time the unemployment rate was falling to 5.4% (where it is today) during an economic expansion was in August 2004 and the Fed then had short-term rates at 1.5% and heading higher. If you go by the more expansive U-6 definition of the jobless rate (also includes marginally attached and part-time workers), which is 10.8%, it was also there in May 1994, when the fed funds rate was 4.25%.

The current looseness of monetary policy will eventually generate higher inflation. It may not be hyperinflation, but it’s more than many investors are prepared for.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #821 on: May 27, 2015, 10:39:17 AM »

"The current looseness of monetary policy will eventually generate higher inflation. It may not be hyperinflation, but it’s more than many investors are prepared for."

   - Now Wesbury sounds like he agrees with us!  The monetary expansion happened (inflation, more money for the same quantity of goods and services) but price increases require some level of demand to materialize.  Who raises prices when they already lack customers?  Also the fall of energy prices is masking or offsetting negative factors and forces in the economy.

The key problems are slow growth, low participation, and the extermination of new business startups.  We have mustered nothing more than a 2% growth rate, when 3.1% is normal long term average and twice that would be a healthy growth rate coming out of a hole this deep.  There is so much stalled productive capability; roughly ONE HUNDRED MILLION ADULTS don't work! 

Our problem was not monetary so neither was the solution.  Imagine what our near zero growth rate over the last 6 years would be without the stimulus of near zero interest rates!  Instead we had just enough growth in the productive half of the economy to mask failure, reelect the status quo, and avoid reform.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33620


« Reply #822 on: May 27, 2015, 07:14:01 PM »

He is saying what he has always said; you guys have misapprehended him quite a bit along the way.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33620


« Reply #823 on: June 12, 2015, 02:33:38 PM »

The Producer Price Index Rose 0.5% in May To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 6/12/2015

The Producer Price Index (PPI) rose 0.5% in May, coming in above the consensus expected gain of 0.4%. Producer prices are down 1.0% versus a year ago.
Energy prices rose 5.9% in May while food prices increased 0.8%. Producer prices excluding food and energy were up 0.1%.

In the past year, prices for services are up 0.6%, while prices for goods are down 4.1%. Private capital equipment prices declined 0.1% in May and were unchanged in the past year.

Prices for intermediate processed goods increased 1.0% in May, and are down 6.8% versus a year ago. Prices for intermediate unprocessed goods increased 3.3% in May, but are down 23.4% versus a year ago.

Implications: If the Fed was looking for reassurance that “transitory factors” holding down inflation may be starting to give way, they got it just in time for next week’s meeting. Energy prices, which have been the key driver pushing prices lower since mid-2014, were up 5.9% in May and are up 18.7% at an annual rate over the past three months. As a result, overall prices have been moving higher as well. The 0.5% increase in overall producer prices in May was the largest gain for any month since 2012. Since March, producer prices are up at a 1.5% annual rate. Prices outside the volatile food and energy sectors have been relatively quiet over the past year. Service prices have increased 0.6% while “core” goods, which exclude food and energy, are up 0.5%. However, given the extended period of loose monetary policy and the recent (partial) rebound in oil prices, we expect inflation to pick up in the year ahead and to do so more quickly than most investors expect. The Fed can see this too, and it is their expectations for future inflation, more than the rearview mirror, that guide their decisions. If they believe inflation is starting to turn higher, a June rate hike could certainly be on the table. Other factors may play a role in their decision as well. For example, May saw price declines in trade, transportation and warehousing, which may still be hangover from the West Coast port strikes. These effects won’t last, though, and when they fade inflation will move higher. In turn, this likely means higher bond yields and a more aggressive Fed than is right now priced into market expectations.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #824 on: June 17, 2015, 02:17:53 PM »

Famous people caught reading the forum.  )

Inflation was the expansion of the money supply; it already happened.  Price increases are coming IF/WHEN economic demand and velocity ever recover.  At zero or negative growth, that time could be never, or we could have a return of stagflation (see Jimmy Carter's first term) or deflation (see Japan last 20 years) which is potentially even more perilous.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #825 on: June 17, 2015, 02:58:09 PM »

I was surprised to see Fed Chair Janet Yellen use such strong words to rip wrong headed optimists like Brian Wesbury.

Who could have seen this coming?  (http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=985.msg87900#msg87900)

The following facts and truths were excerpted away from the all positive bs in this Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/17/federal-reserve-rate-hike-likely-before-year-end/?hpid=z4

Officials at the nation’s central bank voted unanimously to leave the benchmark federal funds rate unchanged at zero during their regular policy meeting in Washington.

Since 2008, it has been at virtually zero in the (mistaken) hope that easy money would stimulate demand among consumers and businesses and bolster the recovery. Raising the rate (which they did NOT do) would amount to a vote of confidence in the country’s economic health. (A confidence they do not have.)

The central bank acknowledged that businesses have been wary of investing and exports are weak.  (I wonder what happened to American competitiveness during these failed redistribution years.)
The Fed... downgraded forecasts for the economy this year. The central bank lowered its forecast for growth.   Meanwhile, it raised the forecast for the unemployment rate.

“The various headwinds that are still restraining the economy will likely take some time to fully abate  (Huh?!), and the pace of that improvement is highly uncertain,” ('ya think?) Fed Chair Janet Yellen said in a speech last month.


IT'S BEEN SIX AND A HALF YEARS!!  WHY DOES ANYONE THINK RESULTS WILL GET BETTER UNDER ALL THE SAME DESTRUCTIVE POLICIES??!!  It's insane - by definition.  Why doesn't Democrat Yellen honestly admit that it is not EVER going to get better unless and until we throw out all the current bums along with all their failed policies.

Wesbury apologizes, resigns.  (Just kidding.)
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12509


« Reply #826 on: June 17, 2015, 06:46:21 PM »

That plow horse don't smell too good...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33620


« Reply #827 on: June 17, 2015, 10:41:51 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/treasury-to-replace-alexander-hamilton-with-woman-on-10-bill/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12509


« Reply #828 on: June 17, 2015, 10:44:16 PM »


Bruce Jenner?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33620


« Reply #829 on: June 18, 2015, 10:52:50 AM »

Hah!

============
The Consumer Price Index Increased 0.4% in May To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 6/18/2015

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased 0.4% in May, coming in slightly below consensus expectations of 0.5%. The CPI is unchanged from a year ago.
“Cash” inflation (which excludes the government’s estimate of what homeowners would charge themselves for rent) rose 0.5% in May, but is down 0.8% in the past year.
Energy prices rose 4.3% in May, while food prices were unchanged. The “core” CPI, which excludes food and energy, increased 0.1% in May, below the consensus expected 0.2%. Core prices are up 1.7% versus a year ago.

Real average hourly earnings – the cash earnings of all workers, adjusted for inflation – declined 0.1% in May, but are up 2.2% in the past year. Real weekly earnings are up 2.3% in the past year.

Implications: In the past four months the CPI has grown at a 3% annualized rate, the fastest pace since 2012. This is not just due to the recent (partial) rebound in energy prices: excluding the volatile food and energy sectors, the CPI is up at 2.4% annualized rate over the same period. Either way you look at it, the recent pace of inflation has been running above the Fed’s 2% target and could eventually put pressure on the Fed to raise rates faster than the market expects. Overall consumer prices rose 0.4% in May but are unchanged over the past twelve months. The lack of headline inflation in the past year is due to energy prices, which rose 4.3% in May but remain down 16.3% from a year ago. “Core” prices, which exclude food and energy, increased 0.1% in May, are up 1.7% in the past twelve months, 2.1% annualized in the last six months, and 2.4% annualized since January. In other words, core prices are gradually accelerating upward. With core prices so close to the Fed’s two percent inflation target, policymakers should remain concerned about future increases in inflation, even with overall consumer prices near zero. “Core” consumer prices in May were led higher by housing. Owners’ equivalent rent, which makes up about ¼ of the CPI, rose 0.3% in May, is up 2.8% in the past year, up at a 3.2% annual rate in the past three months, and will be a key source of higher inflation in the year ahead. Some analysts will use the fact that overall prices are flat from a year ago to warn about “Deflation.” But true deflation – of the kind we ought to be concerned about – is caused by overly tight monetary policy and price declines that are widespread, not isolated to one sector of the economy. Think of the Great Depression. On the earnings front, “real” (inflation-adjusted) average hourly earnings declined 0.1% in May, but are up a healthy 2.2% in the past year. In other news this morning, initial claims for unemployment insurance fell 12,000 last week to 267,000, the 15th straight week below 300,000. Continuing claims for regular state benefits dropped 50,000 to 2.22 million. These figures are consistent with payroll growth of about 230,000 in June. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Fed index, a measure of strength in East Coast manufacturing, jumped to 15.2 in June, the highest so far this year, from 6.7 in May, supporting the case that the economy is reaccelerating after temporary headwinds in the first quarter.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!