TPS Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 ... 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. Yes, the imf data. Commodity futures are one of the primary determinants of the spot prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 And to answer GG, it's the risk. Really? $75t in at risk derivatives on the balance sheet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 In a sign of things to come the BRICS countries are moving away from the US dollar as the world trade reserve currency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 In a sign of things to come the BRICS countries are moving away from the US dollar as the world trade reserve currency. The demise of the dollar as reserve currency is old news... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Really? $75t in at risk derivatives on the balance sheet? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Yes. Oops, we're talking about $90t in JPM's derivative book. So you're saying the at-risk amount of the derivatives is $90t on a $2.2t balance sheet? Sure about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Oops, we're talking about $90t in JPM's derivative book. So you're saying the at-risk amount of the derivatives is $90t on a $2.2t balance sheet? Sure about that? I think he missed the word "at" in your original question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I think he missed the word "at" in your original question... I hope so ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 ... 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. Btw, if your analysis is correct, shouldn't commodity prices also be currently higher than when QE2 started in nov 2010? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I hope so ... Yes. Btw, if your analysis is correct, shouldn't commodity prices also be currently higher than when QE2 started in nov 2010? Why is it that you compartmentalize things, and examine them in complete vacuums, refusing to acknowledge any other outside causes, and tout this behavior as rational? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Yes. Why is it that you compartmentalize things, and examine them in complete vacuums, refusing to acknowledge any other outside causes, and tout this behavior as rational? According to your previous analysis and statements, more money created leads people to purchase/invest in more real things (or something to that effect). Based on that, shouldn't each successive round of QE lead to higher commodity prices? Commodity prices are lower now than they were 2 years ago, and QE has been non-stop. Seriously, don't provide rhetoric, provide an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Btw, if your analysis is correct, shouldn't commodity prices also be currently higher than when QE2 started in nov 2010? You pretend everything exists in a vacuum ( I hate to use this word because I just read that TYTT used the same wording, but it fits and that's precisely the word I would of used any how). That correlation DOES cause causation. This is a pattern of yours, you cherry pick data to support your argument, not taking other important variables into account. That's an intellectually dishonest argument to make, certainly not something that I would expect out of someone who is trying to make a serious case. Going back to your earlier response, the minting of a trillion dollar coin is an atrocious idea and I'm surprised that even you would possibly entertain it. You don't believe that it would open up a pandora's box? The precedent that would occur could have ramifications with serious hazards. If you circumvent the system one time, then you can find loopholes of other usages for other instances. We could just buy more treasuries with the Fed's balance Sheet, swap other commitments as collateral and forgive debt by creating more of these trillion dollar coins. There also would be other loopholes that could be creatively configured that would allow the forgiveness of debt. Also, you seem offended that the debt ceiling is being used to create change. Obviously you are ok with the status quo, because if you weren't then you would also demand change in taking action in reducing our debt. The only time that there have ever been serious discussion about reducing our debt is when a "threat" by the R's of some sort ever came about. The guy you support would never on his own ever take substantial meaningful action in doing anything to solve these dire issues we have. Were you offended by then Senator Obama when he voted not to raise the debt ceiling? Remember when he made a big stink about it? Of course you weren't offended because he is on your team. Edited January 10, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 You pretend everything exists in a vacuum ( I hate to use this word because I just read that TYTT used the same wording, but it fits and that's precisely the word I would of used any how). That correlation DOES cause causation. This is a pattern of yours, you cherry pick data to support your argument, not taking other important variables into account. That's an intellectually dishonest argument to make, certainly not something that I would expect out of someone who is trying to make a serious case. Going back to your earlier response, the minting of a trillion dollar coin is an atrocious idea and I'm surprised that even you would possibly entertain it. You don't believe that it would open up a pandora's box? The precedent that would occur could have ramifications with serious hazards. If you circumvent the system one time, then you can find loopholes of other usages for other instances. We could just buy more treasuries with the Fed's balance Sheet, swap other commitments as collateral and forgive debt by creating more of these trillion dollar coins. There also would be other loopholes that could be creatively configured that would allow the forgiveness of debt. Also, you seem offended that the debt ceiling is being used to create change. Obviously you are ok with the status quo, because if you weren't then you would also demand change in taking action in reducing our debt. The only time that there have ever been serious discussion about reducing our debt is when a "threat" by the R's of some sort ever came about. The guy you support would never on his own ever take substantial meaningful action in doing anything to solve these dire issues we have. Were you offended by then Senator Obama when he voted not to raise the debt ceiling? Remember when he made a big stink about it? Of course you weren't offended because he is on your team. Your post is full of it. I didn't vote for Obama. You made a big ASSumption there. The only political statement I made was that the coin could be used as a way to circumvent the Reps. That is a fact, not a political bias. I'd be happy to explain the impact if you'd like to learn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Explain what? Your failed economic theories? How about addressing the points I made Edited January 10, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Maybe I shouldn't of said "failed economic theories"... A little harsh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 According to your previous analysis and statements, more money created leads people to purchase/invest in more real things (or something to that effect). Based on that, shouldn't each successive round of QE lead to higher commodity prices? Commodity prices are lower now than they were 2 years ago, and QE has been non-stop. Seriously, don't provide rhetoric, provide an explanation. This is not your classroom, professor. You don't get to pass out assignments here. First, you go ahead and explain why nothing outside the very narrow scope of your position has any bearing on anything else relating to your position, and then I'll go ahead and explain why you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 Maybe I shouldn't of said "failed economic theories"... A little harsh The failure of economics is that the role of debt is literally misunderstood. We as Americans have lived too high on the hog & now the financial imposed austerity is killing our economy. How many more trillions must the fed print before we start canceling these erroneous debts that can & will never be paid off. The fed money printing is absurd & far too many right wingers on this board & others understand nothing about the inflationary role this printing causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 This is not your classroom, professor. You don't get to pass out assignments here. First, you go ahead and explain why nothing outside the very narrow scope of your position has any bearing on anything else relating to your position, and then I'll go ahead and explain why you're wrong. Let's see, you use the start of QE and provide the % change in commodity prices from then until now as verification of your austrian views, but then refuse to explain why commodity prices have fallen the past two years in the face of continuous QE policies; who is the fraud? Then, the only way your minority view can be explained further is to assume a grand consipiracy, that inflation is really 9-10%, not 3-4%. The only argument you (and apparently magox) have is "your view is wrong and you live in a vacuum." The proof is in the ability to explain and predict. You guys are forced to accept an extreme view (inflation is really 9-10%) to support your wrong headed views. I do have some sympathy for the austrian view because they realize that debt is an important aspect of explaining macro; the problem is your views on money are outdated. Even Milton Friedman said something similar... Explain what? Your failed economic theories? How about addressing the points I made Here is an explanation for you...http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/opinion/krugman-coins-against-crazies.html?_r=1& Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) Here is an explanation for you... http://www.nytimes.c...zies.html?_r=1 That doesn't even come close to addressing any of the points that I made in the previous post. And in regards to inflation, only failed mainstream economists actually believe that the CPI offers an accurate picture of today's inflation. People who consume health insurance, food, gas, clothing, education and etc. etc. understand that rising prices is the most predominant concern in their lives. Now go on, continue to peddle your nonsense. Let's see, you use the start of QE and provide the % change in commodity prices from then until now as verification of your austrian views, but then refuse to explain why commodity prices have fallen the past two years in the face of continuous QE policies; who is the fraud? Then, the only way your minority view can be explained further is to assume a grand consipiracy, that inflation is really 9-10%, not 3-4%. The only argument you (and apparently magox) have is "your view is wrong and you live in a vacuum." The proof is in the ability to explain and predict. "Conspiracy" so all the rising prices of the things that have been mentioned is a conspiracy? Wow! who knew that we were living in an alternate world? I guess rising prices don't exist in your world. You are one delusional dude. And, the ONLY argument I've made is that you live in a vacuum? Man, no wonder you are having a hard time understanding when people talk to you. You just willfully ignore what you don't want to see. I've made a number of points and just referenced an observation, which was that you have a tendency to cherry pick data that fit your views, and pretend that everything exists in a vacuum. But, yeah, that's the ONLY argument I've made. Edited January 11, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) That doesn't even come close to addressing any of the points that I made in the previous post. And in regards to inflation, only failed mainstream economists actually believe that the CPI offers an accurate picture of today's inflation. People who consume health insurance, food, gas, clothing, education and etc. etc. understand that rising prices is the most predominant concern in their lives. Now go on, continue to peddle your nonsense. "Conspiracy" so all the rising prices of the things that have been mentioned is a conspiracy? Wow! who knew that we were living in an alternate world? I guess rising prices don't exist in your world. You are one delusional dude. And, the ONLY argument I've made is that you live in a vacuum? Man, no wonder you are having a hard time understanding when people talk to you. You just willfully ignore what you don't want to see. I've made a number of points and just referenced an observation, which was that you have a tendency to cherry pick data that fit your views, and pretend that everything exists in a vacuum. But, yeah, that's the ONLY argument I've made. First, i give you credit for sticking your neck out often with predictions. Second, just because I focus on a "main" variable for a particlur issue, does not mean I exclude other variables.On inflation, I agree the cpi is somewhat underestimated, but not by more than 1-2% on average. I disagree with the view that it's underestimated on the range of 6-8%. On individual parts. Look at the cpi pieces and you will see that some things are rising much faster and over long periods of time (healthcare and education as you cite, which have nothing to do with QE btw), whereas others are not. As I said, oil-related prices are lower than the QE-generated speculative spike from April 2011 (if anyone recalls at that time, one week after I predicted the oil bubble's collapse, it did). You are dead wrong on clothing; clothing prices have declined over the long term (you ought to see what i can get for $100 at Kohl's!). Overall, the majority of commodity prices are lower today than what they were when driven up by that speculative QE spike in early 2011. These are commodity prices, NOT cpi values. My view can explain it; does yours? Tasker has to dismiss the question because of his austrian monetary views" more money= more inflation. Here's my view again for posterity's sake: Commodity markets have become financialized, that is the dominant players are now financial interests, flipping from 20% of the markets prior to the 2000 CFMA, to now 75% of the market (new instruments like commodity ETFs are also part of the equation). They influence prices in the short run; the more volatility, the more money they can make. QE has led to speculative bets by investors on commodities, driving prices up; however, these artificial bubbles are eventually pricked because they are not supported by the underlying demand (note, these bubbles can persist in the short term the more inelastic the demand is for each item). In my view, QE (where the Fed has purchased bonds from investors) has caused those investors to use the liquidity on speculative commodity investments and FX bets against the dollar. These speculative increases influence the cpi through the impact on commodity prices, with a lag; those components of the cpi decline (with a lag) after the bubble bursts as well. The reason QE hasn't had a sustained impact on higher prices since early 2011 is because of the underlying weakness in the economy (US and globally). In fact, it's the actions of those investors that bring about their own demise, as the higher price of oil (and other commodities) chokes off consumption and demand. Since investors aren't stupid, I think they have learned from QE2, that the so-called money printing by the Fed isn't the primary cause of inflation in a depressed economy. We have not seen the same speculative bubbles with the last couple announcements by the Fed. That said, If the economy improves this year as I have predicted, then investors will again try to jump on that train (which can restrain growth as I described earlier). Now, you want to critque this explanation, please do. If you have a different explanation, please provide it. Stop with the vague BS. Put your theory/explanation in writing, if you dare. Btw, here's another prediction for you: if JPMorgan is allowed to go forward with its physical copper ETF, we will see a nice little bubble this year, and lots of "analysts" calling for higher copper prices. Edited January 11, 2013 by TPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts