TPS Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 That was an incredibly retarded explanation by Roche. Also, I never said that this monetary policy would lead to hyperinflation, what I said is that it could, that because of the slack in our economy, we wouldn't see tremendously high inflation until that slack disappear. Also, we are seeing higher inflation, food and gas prices went up dramatically after the announcement of QE. And then they came back down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) They came down some because this is the time of the year they come down . It was just a few months ago where we had record high prices for the month of October, and now that they have come down their typical 10-15%, and your response is "and then they came back down" Edited January 9, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I've got a great idea, why don't we just produce about 16 of these coins, wipe out our debt in its entirety, print some money, and just pay back our foreign creditors with the printed money... I mean, it's not "spending", so naturally if it isn't new spending, there can't be any negative inflationary ramifications to making this decision. Yes, we've read that elsewhere. Do you understand the implications of swapping a trillion $ denominated coin with the Fed? The Fed's treasuries already injected $ reserves into the system, the swap adds nothing. What it does is reduce the outstanding debt HELD BY THE FED by $1 trillion, which gives the government room to continue to spend what congress already okayed. The spending going forward, over and above tax revenues, could then be finance with new debt issues, no different than if the debt ceiling was raised. The major impact is that the Fed now loses interest revenues, but those would've been transferred back to the treasury anyway. They came down some because this is the time of the year they come down . It was just a few months ago where we had record high prices for the month of October, and now that they have come down their typical 10-15%, and your response is "and then they came back down" I'm not talking about the last QE, I'm talking about all of them. The response--as you and I discussed and agreed about a couple years ago--was an initial increase as "investors" poured into commodity investments, but since the demand fundamentals weren't driving the increases, the QE driven bubbles always burst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 We can just do this yearly and never accumulate debt. Voilaaaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Despite an increase in the production of both beef and grain over the last 43 years, and a vibrant and growing fast food market putting downward pressure on prices, the cost of a McDonald's hamburger in 1970 was 28 cents, today it costs one dollar. You don't live in the comparative, so I find your comparison flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 You don't live in the comparative, so I find your comparison flawed. You're a fantastically stupid SOB, aren'cha? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted January 9, 2013 Author Share Posted January 9, 2013 In a way the Federal Reserve printed $13 trillion in the Wall Street bailouts, you can't tell me that the banking system will not teeter to collapse. My predication a global economic collapse is coming. When JP Morgan's 90 trillion dollar derivatives book of business collapses then you will have anarchy. Wonder why they are trying to take away our guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 When JP Morgan's 90 trillion dollar derivatives book of business collapses then you will have anarchy. Wonder why they are trying to take away our guns? Is that the notional amount or at risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) In a way the Federal Reserve printed $13 trillion in the Wall Street bailouts, you can't tell me that the banking system will not teeter to collapse. My predication a global economic collapse is coming. When JP Morgan's 90 trillion dollar derivatives book of business collapses then you will have anarchy. Wonder why they are trying to take away our guns? The FDIC already absorbed $75T in derivatives from BoA in 2011. We're long past the point of sowing the seeds of our own destruction. We're now in the cultivation phase. And to answer GG, it's the risk. Edited January 9, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I'm not talking about the last QE, I'm talking about all of them. The response--as you and I discussed and agreed about a couple years ago--was an initial increase as "investors" poured into commodity investments, but since the demand fundamentals weren't driving the increases, the QE driven bubbles always burst. ... We've seen 36% commodities inflation since the first round of QE began, as I sourced for you in another thread; and that inflation is only indicative of a very small portion of those ledger assets being released as currency. The balance is being held as reserve collateral against impending derivatives losses, and will certainly be released into the general economy as those instruments fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 We can just do this yearly and never accumulate debt. Voilaaaa No. The Fed only holds about $1.6 trillion in treasuries currently. It's a political solution that would allow BO to say FU to the reps when they hold the economy hostage over a politically imposed debt ceiling. A nominal debt ceiling is idiocy. If congress wants to impose a ceiling, then impose a debt/GDP ceiling on public debt outstanding because that is the real measure of of the burden of debt, one's ability to pay. The FDIC already absorbed $75T in derivatives from BoA in 2011. We're long past the point of sowing the seeds of our own destruction. We're now in the cultivation phase. And to answer GG, it's the risk. By absorb, do you mean they took it off the books, or the fact that they were put on the books of their banking business so they could be bailed out if need be? ... We've seen 36% commodities inflation since the first round of QE began, as I sourced for you in another thread; and that inflation is only indicative of a very small portion of those ledger assets being released as currency. The balance is being held as reserve collateral against impending derivatives losses, and will certainly be released into the general economy as those instruments fail. Yes, and I believe that I questioned your starting point as well as saying that it amounted to a relatively small annual rate of return on their investments. Is that the notional amount or at risk? Serious ?? When "at risk" is measured, is there any attempt to incorporate the risk of counter-party default on what is believed to be hedged? That is, have we learned anything from Lehman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 You're a fantastically stupid SOB, aren'cha? Now now simmer down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) By absorb, do you mean they took it off the books, or the fact that they were put on the books of their banking business so they could be bailed out if need be? Clearly, as the FDIC is an insurance provider, I meant that they absorbed the risk after those derivatives were shifted from ML to the banking side of the ledger at BoA. Furthermore, you knew that. Yes, and I believe that I questioned your starting point as well as saying that it amounted to a relatively small annual rate of return on their investments. You questioned it, and I rejected your criticism out of hand as I neither cherry picked data nor had a flawed starting point. As to your "small rate of return", stop shifting the goal posts. Edited January 10, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 That was an incredibly retarded explanation by Roche. Also, I never said that this monetary policy would lead to hyperinflation, what I said is that it could, that because of the slack in our economy, we wouldn't see tremendously high inflation until that slack disappear. Also, we are seeing higher inflation, food and gas prices went up dramatically after the announcement of QE. but since neither fuel or food are counted in the inflation index.... worse yet, the "adjusted" inflation rate reflect this... Meaning, if the cost of clothing, goes up because of higher fuel rates, it can be adjusted, so as to not reflect fuel costs, which aren't a part of inflation.... Circular bullsh1t, but exactly what we're fed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 but since neither fuel or food are counted in the inflation index.... worse yet, the "adjusted" inflation rate reflect this... Meaning, if the cost of clothing, goes up because of higher fuel rates, it can be adjusted, so as to not reflect fuel costs, which aren't a part of inflation.... Circular bullsh1t, but exactly what we're fed... I really like corn tortillas. The price has shot up tremendously. Is it better that we burn food in our cars or our abundant supply of oil or natural gas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Rather than me rehashing the issues that have been discussed on various blogs, here's a summary by Roche: http://pragcap.com/e...st-of-the-world It's pretty clear most people totally misunderstand the concept of using this as a strategy to circumvent the debt ceiling. I'd suggest that Tasker (and Magox) read his views on hyperinflation too... Talk about what this would do to interest rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) I think it has to be a coin, as in METAL coin... But, then again what's a little more shredding of the Constitution gonna do... :-P Edited January 10, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Clearly, as the FDIC is an insurance provider, I meant that they absorbed the risk after those derivatives were shifted from ML to the banking side of the ledger at BoA. Furthermore, you knew that. You questioned it, and I rejected your criticism out of hand as I neither cherry picked data nor had a flawed starting point. As to your "small rate of return", stop shifting the goal posts. Just wanted to be clear that is what you meant.Yes, purposely chose the wording as my view is that it is driven by investors now that they dominate the commodity markets, and their actions influence measured inflation. This wasn't possible prior to the commodity futures modernization act of 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Just wanted to be clear that is what you meant. Yes, purposely chose the wording as my view is that it is driven by investors now that they dominate the commodity markets, and their actions influence measured inflation. This wasn't possible prior to the commodity futures modernization act of 2000. ... So you didn't even bother to examine the link I provided... I don't factor single stock futures into the commodities numbers I use, and you would know that had you done your due diligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts