idiots messing with systems they don't understand
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 6 Jun 2010 11:52 On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 07:02:25 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Jun 5, 4:28�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:16:52 +1000, Adrian Jansen <adr...(a)qq.vv.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7769126/US-money-supply-... >> >> >> John >> >> >Maybe if economists were given a course in feedback theory, like >> >engineers get, then some of the problems might be corrected. >> >> And basic conservation theories. I never understood how "consumer >> spending drives two thirds of the economy." All we need to do to >> prosper is whip out our credit cards and buy a lot of consumer junk >> from China? >> >> John > >Easy. 2/3rds of the GDP the government takes credit for tallies up the >things regular people buy, and all the manufacturing and retail >activity that spurs. > >They don't care where the money comes from, whether it's your money or >borrowed, or whether you're buying anything useful, so yeah, do your >part: whip out your card and buy tulips on credit. Preferably more >than you can afford. > >Or flood your house then rebuild it. That'll jack up GDP too. > >If you're Obama, you can hire a bunch of Census workers and have them >run around in circles. (Government activity doesn't count in GDP, but >they count it indirectly (the "multiplier" notion) as stimulating >other private enterprise. Namely, Census workers spending their >paychecks.) It's the broken window fallacy, yet again. Hell, hire them ten times, each day if necessary. Count it in the "jobs added" column each time. Just ignore them in the "jobs lost" category. BTW, I still have not been counted. >For that matter AGW's a boon--Al Gore's great for GDP. Look at all the GDP that will come from tearing down power plants and adding new "green" ones.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 6 Jun 2010 21:24 On 05/06/2010 22:02, JosephKK wrote: > On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:16:52 +1000, Adrian Jansen<adrian(a)qq.vv.net> > wrote: > >> >> John Larkin wrote: >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7769126/US-money-supply-plunges-at-1930s-pace-as-Obama-eyes-fresh-stimulus.html >>> >>> >>> John >>> >> Maybe if economists were given a course in feedback theory, like >> engineers get, then some of the problems might be corrected. > > Naw, those ivory tower types cannot learn from reality. > Plus they are much too interested developing theory to make weird > financial instruments look good. Google "fractional reserve banking" -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 7 Jun 2010 00:47 dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > On May 26, 10:00 pm, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 26, 8:09 pm, John Larkin > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7769126/US-money-supply-... > > > > > John > > > > Is money going to collapse? > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7769126/US-money-supply-... > > > > US money supply plunges at 1930s pace as Obama eyes fresh stimulus > > The M3 money supply in the United States is contracting at an > > accelerating rate that now matches the average decline seen from 1929 > > to 1933, despite near zero interest rates and the biggest fiscal blitz > > in history. > > > > By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Published: 9:40PM BST 26 May 2010 > > <big snip> > > > Events may soon tell us whether this is benign or malign. It is > > certainly remarkable. > > The Fed operates in shadowy ways I don't fully understand yet. I > don't think they do either. > > Anyway, early in the crisis they quit reporting the M3 money supply to > make it harder to figure out what they're up to. Now they only report > M1 and M2: Except that the M3 consists of parts of the money supply the least under the Fed's control. Things like CDs, money market funds, etc. that the Fed doesn't use for its banking reserve requirements. So while the Fed can reduce the M1 and M2 supply by increasing the reserve requirements, not so much with the M3. Its just as likely that low interest rates have driven institutional investors out of cash and into other kinds of assets. Right around now would be when Wall Street would be telling sad stories about the markets, so their clients can buy in at lower prices. -- Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul(a)Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.
From: dagmargoodboat on 7 Jun 2010 08:33 On Jun 7, 12:47 am, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <P...(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote: > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > On May 26, 10:00 pm, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 26, 8:09 pm, John Larkin > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7769126/US-money-supply-... > > > > > John > > > > Is money going to collapse? > > > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7769126/US-money-supply-.... > > > > US money supply plunges at 1930s pace as Obama eyes fresh stimulus > > > The M3 money supply in the United States is contracting at an > > > accelerating rate that now matches the average decline seen from 1929 > > > to 1933, despite near zero interest rates and the biggest fiscal blitz > > > in history. > > > > By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Published: 9:40PM BST 26 May 2010 > > > <big snip> > > > > Events may soon tell us whether this is benign or malign. It is > > > certainly remarkable. > > > The Fed operates in shadowy ways I don't fully understand yet. I > > don't think they do either. > > > Anyway, early in the crisis they quit reporting the M3 money supply to > > make it harder to figure out what they're up to. Now they only report > > M1 and M2: > > Except that the M3 consists of parts of the money supply the least under > the Fed's control. Things like CDs, money market funds, etc. that the > Fed doesn't use for its banking reserve requirements. So while the Fed > can reduce the M1 and M2 supply by increasing the reserve requirements, > not so much with the M3. But the purpose of reporting is to tell people the current state of the money supply, not whether the Fed can affect or control it. Ditto inflation or unemployment, for example. (Wikipedia) "Congressman Ron Paul claimed that 'M3 is the best description of how quickly the Fed is creating new money and credit. Common sense tells us that a government central bank creating new money out of thin air depreciates the value of each dollar in circulation.' " (I'm not vouching for him--he's rather strident--but then I've not studied the Fed either.) What do you make of Treasury's mortgage-buying last year? $1.25T, and I can't find it reflected in the debt or the deficit. What rug did they sweep that under? > Its just as likely that low interest rates have driven institutional > investors out of cash and into other kinds of assets. I'm not worried by a falling money supply. Maybe I should be, but I'm not. I imagine there's still mega cash sitting idle. (T'was the case last time I looked, but I don't track that.) I know a number of people who've gone 100% cash. People are afraid to put it to work, lest it get redistributed. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: John Larkin on 7 Jun 2010 09:51
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 05:33:25 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Jun 7, 12:47�am, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <P...(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote: >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > On May 26, 10:00 pm, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > > On May 26, 8:09 pm, John Larkin >> >> > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> > > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7769126/US-money-supply-... >> >> > > > John >> >> > > Is money going to collapse? >> >> > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7769126/US-money-supply-... >> >> > > US money supply plunges at 1930s pace as Obama eyes fresh stimulus >> > > The M3 money supply in the United States is contracting at an >> > > accelerating rate that now matches the average decline seen from 1929 >> > > to 1933, despite near zero interest rates and the biggest fiscal blitz >> > > in history. >> >> > > By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard �Published: 9:40PM BST 26 May 2010 >> >> > <big snip> >> >> > > Events may soon tell us whether this is benign or malign. It is >> > > certainly remarkable. >> >> > The Fed operates in shadowy ways I don't fully understand yet. �I >> > don't think they do either. >> >> > Anyway, early in the crisis they quit reporting the M3 money supply to >> > make it harder to figure out what they're up to. �Now they only report >> > M1 and M2: >> >> Except that the M3 consists of parts of the money supply the least under >> the Fed's control. Things like CDs, money market funds, etc. that the >> Fed doesn't use for its banking reserve requirements. So while the Fed >> can reduce the M1 and M2 supply by increasing the reserve requirements, >> not so much with the M3. > >But the purpose of reporting is to tell people the current state of >the money supply, not whether the Fed can affect or control it. Ditto >inflation or unemployment, for example. > >(Wikipedia) > "Congressman Ron Paul claimed that 'M3 is the best description of >how quickly the Fed is creating new money and credit. Common sense >tells us that a government central bank creating new money out of thin >air depreciates the value of each dollar in circulation.' " > >(I'm not vouching for him--he's rather strident--but then I've not >studied the Fed either.) > >What do you make of Treasury's mortgage-buying last year? $1.25T, and >I can't find it reflected in the debt or the deficit. What rug did >they sweep that under? It's not debt if you swap one asset (fictitious dollars) for another asset (worthless mortgages.) John |