Shopping at Amazon?
Wait! If you click on the Amazon banner link at the top of the page first, HCN will get a percentage of anything you purchase for 24 hours!
Open predictions
Our local book authors
User login
Who's online
There are currently 24 members and 153 guests online.
Recent Recommendations
Good Morning!
In the diary i'm reading, the lawyer who wrote it searches for clues from the past, and an elderly gentleman he knows lived through the crash of 1873, and the only thing that was safe then, was government securities, as was the case in his time from the great crash onwards.
left you a reply JD in the
thread.
and I agree CR...I wrote my Senator who is 'Undecided'...I urge all to do the same. I'm soooo stupid and use my
thinking that as a voter, taxpayer, etc. it actually makes any difference.
"I definitely think we could do better. "
I hope we do.
"I definitely think we could do better."
I am watching this with great interest. The real story may never be known, certainly not in full. This has the stuff to appeal to the kooks as well as the ignorant (such as myself).
However, since you're a trend person
the trend is slipping toward the bears and a pass on confirmation would trigger quite the reaction, nes't pas
Owed to:
YouTube - Willie Nelson - I Never Cared For You
Barry Ritholtz :
The Big Picture » Blog Archive » WSJ Jumps the Shark
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
posted earlier
Crash Stew: Signs Point to Global Stock Market Meltdown by Mac Slavo
LMAO...Rupert Murdoch's editorial staff is having problems? WHO KNEW? LMAO.
The WSJ has a nasty yellow come stain on the sheets, since Citizen Rupert's acquisition.
it's tough to flash a rack in print
OT
ETF option bets hint at stocks correction soon
| Reuters
'I definitely think we could do better. '
yes we can . Simon Johnson FTW >; )
Obama may have confidence in Ben but Lots of Americans (and the world) have lost confidence in Obama having any ability to make the right decisions.
Big crocodile tears will be flowing from Glen Beck soon, Sarah Palin will add to the soap opera drama of her persecution and once Rupert insists on MORE money from followers I expect soon that Rush will be added to his list of 'stars' on thin ice.
"like claiming incorrectly to have an exploding adjustable rate mortgage. That was an ignorant remark"
arrogant
A lot hinges on Bernanke getting reappointed...
If he gets the heave ho, it makes for a convenient time to clean house of the Boys of Summers.
Voce Populi and all that.
Hot stock tip...buy
my supply is thin.
Comrade Misean is Dope wrote:
liar?
If you are going to use the word arrogant, it should be applied to Bernanke's claims that simply by printing money, he could avert deflation.
For the arrogance and stupidity displayed, and lack of results, he deserves to be dropped as Fed Chairman.
In the meantime, various measures of money supply are falling, the money multiplier is falling, lending across the board is contracting, and people are suffering. The only things that are increasing are future liabilities and financial bonuses.
In the words of Jon Stewart, "ClusterF*ck to the Poorhouse".
Isn't it a stretch to think that a FED appointment would turn on populism ? Are we far enough out of the recessionary woods that we can afford that ?
Actually, the notion that Washington is suddenly going to turn populist - at all - is a bit of a stretch after the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The idea that Ben was in cahoots with everybody that was too big to fail makes his up or down vote a referendum on whether we go forward into uncharted waters, or stay land-locked.
dum lik
just google populist obama and take a look,they are already saying that.
The man only saved us from the financial Armageddon 8 years of Republican deregulation brought about, but lets pretend that didn't happen because Republicans are so much smarter now.
Bernanke's job is to the economy as my job is to the health of my livestock. Could I not know when my cows were sick? Never - and I don't profess to be an expert on issues of livestock health management. Out with the man - it's kind of like wearing someone else's shoes - you know something just doesn't feel right.
gabyjan - ok - will do - back later
huh?
totally off topic but
With third Olympics in sight, Cohen reveling in skating spotlight - USATODAY.com
Nobody really knows what effect the Supreme's decision will have on unfettered money, but every sitting politician right now, knows that they are sitting ducks for the simmering anger of the people that voted them in, come November...
Why do you think so many of them are quitting?
REBear wrote:
liar?
"insolently proud"
dum luk...you forgot your snark tag. Also the deregulation began long, long before and it was GLOBAL...How else to hide uberwealth from taxation and concentrate powers of financial/corporate geniuses.
One thing is clear to me and has been for some time; the only difference between the two political parties is their rhetoric. Actions (and inactions) speak louder than words. We don't need a third party just a second one.
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
They're tired of the drugs and tutes and want to spend some quality time with the family.
Nobody really knows what effect the Supreme's decision will have on unfettered money.............oh I think we know. There will be no need to have to hide its real source. I hate the decision, but feel it is the correct one.
Just like Edwards, eh? Or Gingrich? or, or.....
I love mea culpas.
Female Suicide Bombers May Be Heading Here from Yemen, Say Sources - ABC News
now what do we do? shoot all planes from yemen with females in them down?
cavity searches gabyjan.
Nanoo - you're right - I should have tagged it as snark.
gabyjan - I was trying to suggest that - given the USSCourt decision, politicians are going to be even more dependent upon corporate financial backing. So, it's hard to see how populism will really be the determining factor in the appointment of the FED chairman.
We found out last week that the people are down on negative campaign advertising, and it's not like the powers that be are gonna blow a bunch of money on positive campaign advertising.
Things have a way of evening out...
Nanoo-Nanoo wrote:
I don't necessarily oppose the term "deregulation" except that it is not precise. Most certainly regulation that existed to socialize costs were at worst left alone, if not strengthened. It was reregulation, with greater privatization of benefits and increased socialization of costs.
Black Star Ranch wrote:
Next...and sorry to be crass...no feminine hygiene products allowed on board...not even when they are 'use'. I'm so glad I don't need to travel for work.
Jonathan wrote:
Exactly.
It's all just conditioning so people applaud when they're asked for their papers and nod their heads in unison to "...if you've got nothing to hide..."
I bet that diary was written in a time when US securities were directly backed by gold, which is not the case today.
So by implication, the author is saying that the only thing he trusts is gold.
Interesting.
just to add a little wood to the fire
Simon Johnson: Questions That Ben Bernanke Must Answer
Yes this correct but that too is partial. The reregulation that included those elements you describe were enabled through structural changes in banking, lending, trading, insurance, etc.
As I stated before, without structural elements restored, any attempts to restore balance will be an exercise in futility. As fast as laws can be written, ways to get around them will be found or added into subsequent unrelated legislation.
This requires a 12-step program and a permanent suspension of the drivers license.
maynardGkeynes wrote:
Of course he can avert deflation by printing money. See Zimbabwe.
Much of what FDR did was to push America into more of a egalitarian society. My lawyer is always writing how professional men like him didn't benefit from government largesse.
One day he wrote of 60 Cleveland lawyers having their phones disconnected, out of business.
It's just the other way around today, egalitarianism for the top 1%
This a repeat post regarding BB; at times he has been just ignorant and non caring. Judge for yourself.
"
Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog
December 22, 2009, 10:58 am
A strange complacency
Many people have written about this WaPo article on the Fed’s failure to foresee the crisis. I was particularly struck by the complacency over housing prices. I mean, there had just been an enormous increase in prices; the dotcom bubble was fresh in our memory; simple indicators like the price-rent ratio were flashing red. How could they have been so sure nothing was wrong?
And I was particularly struck by this part:
In January 2005, National City’s chief economist had delivered a prescient warning to the Fed’s board of governors: An increasingly overvalued housing market posed a threat to the broader economy, not to mention his own bank and others deeply involved in writing mortgages.
The message wasn’t well received. One board member expressed particular skepticism — Ben Bernanke.
“Where do you think it will be the worst?” Bernanke asked, according to people who attended the meeting, one in a series of sessions the Fed holds with economists.
“I would have to say California,” said the economist, Richard Dekaser.
“They have been saying that about California since I bought my first house in 1979,” Bernanke replied.
This time the warnings were correct …
Believe it or not, the Post is being too kind to Bernanke here, by implicitly asserting that past warnings about California housing bubbles had proved wrong. Um, no. Here’s a quick and dirty chart of Los Angeles metro housing prices, adjusted for inflation, between 1980 and 2000 (I’m using FHFA numbers and national PCE; you could do a more careful version, but I’m sure it wouldn’t make much difference):
FHFA, BEA
The point is that there was indeed a huge CA bubble in the 80s, which burst painfully. Nor was this an obscure bit of knowledge: in fact, people like Calculated Risk and yours truly were quite explicitly using the great California bubble of the 80s as a model for what was going to happen nationally.
This whole episode makes me think considerably worse of my former department head.
Update: Kevin Drum got there first.
* Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
* Privacy Policy
* NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
"
maynardGkeynes wrote:
Exactly. "
That was hubris.
Nanoo-Nanoo wrote:
Well, build any structure on a foundation of paper...
Black Star Ranch wrote:
I'm with you, BSR!
and there's also the unfortunate rash
All this posturing is a
to provide coverage to Senate Democrats facing the torches and pitchforks this year. It reminds me of the bailout. Both Republicans and Democrats from vulnerable districts (or vulnerable Senate seats up for election) voted NO for the bailout. However, NO votes were allocated only to them, and there were enough YES votes from safe Congresscritters to "get 'er done".
So, in the end, Bernanke is re-nominated by a vote in the low-50's "AYE" consisting almost exclusively of the 2/3 of the Senate not facing the torches and pitchforks this fall.
Nice.
Bernanke definitely supported policies that contributed to the crisis, and he failed to see the problems coming. However once Bernanke started to understand the problem, he was very effective at providing liquidity for the markets.
Do we want a Fed Chairman effective at fighting financial crises or a Fed Chairman effective at preventing financial crises?
Case closed.
Next candidate please.
Care to time travel?
$111.72 in 1933 had the buying power of $100 in 1873.
$1661.29 in 2008 has the buying power of $100 in 1933
Measuring Worth - Purchasing Power of US Dollar
And Calculated Risk does an about face on Bernanke. Better late than never I suppose.
Badger boy wrote:
Yep, feels that way to me.
Comrade Peronista wrote:
Zimbabwe does not have an debt-based economy where every dollar created must be loaned into existence. We do. That's the difference. Every dollar printed here adds to our debt.
and dont forget the scorpion which crawled inside during the middle of the night...
The hour is late, and not a lot of time to bring in some one else new before the term expires. I agree that over the last year he has been effective, but prior to that and especially when he was working with Alan, he was very much part of the problem. I don't think the markets would like a long period of uncertianty while someone new was vetter. One possible exception, who could get confirmed quickly would be to name Volker back to the post.
Putsch yourself in the position of the Supreme Court.
squid scorpion
TCA wrote:
TCA: The plan is for Banks to borrow at 0% from Fed and then turn around and lend to US Treasury at 4%. The Government runs deficits. This is inflationary. (I am talking about consumer staples, food, gas - not assets).
....while studying the Simon Johnson link, I wandered - I have a bad habit nowadays of "wandering" around and forgetting what I'm doing. If I were Conan O'Brien, I'd be thanking my lucky stars he had an attorney that could get him his HUGE $35-million payout from NBC upon his departure. Costing the network millions more with willful misuses of their money I think is over the top - it shows his total lack of character and class.....and without a sense of humor, he'll at least be comfortable in his old age. NBC is decidedly more idiotic than he.
Conan Blowing NBC's Money, Spends $1.5 Million For One Minute Segment (VIDEO)
Once again, my lawyer writes of price inflation in everything, after FDR gets in.
His haircut went from 25 to 50 cents, for instance.
thanks for the link jd
the wall street mythical god....the squid scorpion...when in trouble it releases ink so you can't see what its doing while the stinger arches back to inject its poison on the unsuspecting prey...
in a nutshell the Fed took effectively worthless paper, gave good money in return, is basically insolvent itself or will be, and will have to be bailed out by you and me (where the hell does that money come from?) when everyone realizes it's chockfull of worthless assets? And BB is trying to cover that up.
Daily Kos :: Comments Naked Capitalism Guest Post: AIG Bailout Secrets Exposed!
From CR's CNBC link & wiki
Of the Democratic incumbents -
UNDECIDED-
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii
Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
Chuck Schumer of New York
Ron Wyden of Oregon
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Patty Murray of Washington
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
Michael Bennet of Colorado
VOTING - NO
Barbara Boxer of California
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
VOTING- YES
Harry Reid of Nevada
Evan Bayh of Indiana
Of the Republican incumbents -
UNDECIDED-
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
John McCain of Arizona
Johnny Isakson of Georgia
Mike Crapo of Idaho
Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
John Thune of South Dakota
Bob Bennett of Utah
VOTING NO -
Richard Shelby of Alabama
David Vitter of Louisiana
Jim DeMint of South Carolina
VOTING YES-
Richard Burr of North Carolina
,rade you saying
?
i like that little fishie,i thinks its going to get lot of use.
again thanks kcoop
Black Star Ranch wrote:
Conan's?
Conan O'Brien has no class or character because he took what was due by contract from GE?
Comrade Peronista wrote:
This is why banks report bumper profits and astronomic bonuses.
Why? Even uoutside of OER, the year-on-year increase in consumer prices is 3-5%, and that includes gas prices.
Inflation and high unemployment can only co-exist when the economy is collapsing, e.g., Weimar Germany or many developing countries.
But even collapsing economy with high unemployment does not have to have high inflation, e.g., US Great Depression. As pointed above, the debt level in the economy is key.
Of course the worrying thing about the Fed, is that if it has continued being run as a personality cult as it was under the obfuscatory, domineering and enigmatic Greenspan, then we may not get a lot of change, even if Bernanke is replaced.
Note: Add Kay Bailey Hutchison to the Republican Noes.
"we could do better"?
????!!!!
He's the freakin' captain of the Titanic. Of course we can do better.
There are so many reasons why this man has NO BUSINESS doing anything other than low-level CPA work it isn't even funny. Get him out of there or this country is screwed.
Apparently, Greenspan came out recently with a comment that Bernanke is the best person for the position.
If Greenspan backs Bernanke, that alone should be reason enough NOT to reconfirm Bernanke!
kcoop ROCKS!
Black Star Ranch wrote:
It's ok because everyone does it and corporations are inherently eeeeeeeeeeeeevillllllllllllllllllll.
They say you never see 8/9's of the iceberg you ram into...
Also, the Fed essentially laundered money to Goldman Sachs, Merill Lynch, and the French bank SocGen through AIG by honoring that worthless paper at 100% face value or close to it. It's a whole lot fancier than robbery or counterfeiting, but the end result may end up more or less the same.
MayorQuimby wrote:
Get him out of there. This country is screwed.
there, IFIFY
REBear wrote:
Good Lord, how can anyone be undecided at this point over two years into this? Either you think BB pulled the world from the abyss (guffaw) or you think he's a liar and a crook. What else is there to debate?
Glod I HATE politicians!
JD, from 1930 to 1933 the use of margarine went down and the use of butter went up. That's before the prinitng presses started in 1932/1933.
Draft Volcker for the Fed! The scourge of the
!
km4 wrote:
Press any number key, like this:
5
then press and hold the 0 key, like this:
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
(on your side TCA...
)
Yeah...
Comrade Peronista wrote:
price adjustment, less demand, the milk keeps coming, supply grows, total loss absent sale /consumption, price comes down, margarine stays on the shelf
Paul Krugman For The Fed « The Baseline Scenario
"
Paul Krugman For The Fed
with 11 comments
The case for Ben Bernanke’s reappointment was weak to start with, weakened with his hearings, and is now held together by string and some phone calls from the White House. Bernanke is an airline pilot who pulled off a miraculous landing, but didn’t do his preflight checks and doesn’t show any sign of being more careful in the future – thank him if you want, but why would you fly with him again (or the airline that keeps him on)?
The support for Bernanke in the Senate hangs by a thread – with Harry Reid providing a message of support, albeit lukewarm, after the markets close. The White House is telling people that if Bernanke is not reconfirmed there will be chaos in the markets and the economic recovery will be derailed. This is incorrect.
The danger here is uncertainty – the markets fear a prolonged policy vacuum. Fortunately, there is a way to address this. Ben Bernanke should withdraw and the president should nominate Paul Krugman to take his place.
Paul Krugman is an expert on monetary policy – he wrote the classic paper on balance of payments crises (and probably could have got the Nobel Prize just for that), his work on Japan in the 1990s shaped everyone’s thinking of how to handle potential deflation, and his assessment of the crisis and needed response in fall 2008 was right on the money.
"
There is much more in the article.
Good choice, imho! Its time these Nobel winners are put to work, besides writing papers!
I'd be careful about giving away the secrets of the mouse clique, ,rad.
MrM wrote:
Do you remember the 1970's? Or 1933-1937? Or how about Venezuela as we speak now?
"The four largest banks now hold more than half of the industry’s assets."
Obama and the banks: Glass-Steagall lite | The Economist
TCA wrote:
I'm sorry. I should have said 'unconfirmed' not 'undecided'. For some reason i can't edit my previous message.
volker the viking wrote:
Correct.
Comrade Peronista wrote:
The total debt in the U.S. economy did not decrease in the 70's. It began decreasing in 2007 and is continuing to decrease despite all the QE. Given that our money is credit in the U.S., that is deflationary.
SNAFU wrote:
Glod save us.
In the end, the Senate will reconfirm Bernanke. Although Senators will get mostly negative feedback from the public, the possible consequences of not confirming are just too large to ignore. The fact that several Senators, especially Barbara Boxer, came out in opposition shows that they are confident that Bernanke will be confirmed despite their opposition.
By coming out early, they shift more of the load of reconfirmation on to the Republican Senators who have been getting a free ride on economic policy since the stimulus vote. We will find out which Republicans will work with Democrats on an issue of perceived importance and which are willing to burn the house down because they don't like the dinner menu. This is also a dry run for the Financial Services reform, which is likely to require a similar coalition to pass the Senate.
What the public gets is a delay, Bernanke's current term will expire and Kohn will be acting-chairman. This is just symbolism but sometimes that is all the public needs.
Gasoline below $2/gal and positive job growth will calm a lot of anger.
TCA wrote:
IMHO the charts on debt growth and servicing is some of KD's best work if I do say so RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW!!!
I agree that the WSJ has gone way downhill. However, I have been
relying on their quotes for treasury issues. Can somebody suggest
an alternative, preferably free?
Comrade Peronista wrote:
I was referring to the Zimbabwe example, i.e., very high inflation.
An inflation is always possible, of course
Rajesh wrote:
WHAT? And this will be happening in which alternate universe?
Throw down your CAP-gun ,rad. We have you surrounded and if you make us do it, we'll projectile spittle on you.
Ok TCA, the question is then: Will we have deflation in consumer prices over a longer period in the U.S.? Let's say 9 months in a row at -3% or more deflation. I say no chance in hell with the current people running the show. The government will fill the gap. The money does not disappear. Credit does. Credit is not money.
I will come back and give you the credit if it ever happens.
Coffeee exiting the nostrils sucks! ROFLMAO
Krugman has zero chance. He's far too partisan, and his one idea is to throw more stimpack money at the problem. The only way you'll get more stimpack right now is to take some money away from the banks, and stick it directly into some sort of employment program. People would go along with that.
JD, Misean's just doing his best Denninger impression. Although if he could find a way to post in 72 pt font, it would be more realistic.
why would he want it? why would anyone want it? why does he want it? its a rock and a hard place. its a damned if you do damned if you dont.its a tiger by the tail.
gluten for punishment?
? should we be looking someplace else?
is this another
just my thoughts
Comrade Peronista wrote:
Define consumer prices:
- Including owner's Equivalent Rent (as in the official CPI definition)?
- Excluding OER but including gas?
- Just staples?
If you choose the first definition, the answer is likely yes, we will have deflation because of OER
If the the latter, we are likely to see mild inflation (single digit percent)
Ben has been effective? For whom? The banks?
Responsible conservative older people on fixed income products have been screwed with Ben's policy of maintaining a steep yield curve so his precious insolvent banks can survive by attempting to reflate assets when the underlying income does not support them.
He'll probably breeze through on renomination, however. Why? Because I'm gonna call my senators (webb and warner) monday morning opposing ben. And every time I call they vote the other way.
How will you ever know if prices do fall in all consumer spaces? The numbers the Feds put out are so cooked that they are meaningless. If you're talking about the price of gas, who knows? But price deflation is evident everywhere except in food and energy right now. They will be the last to fall. There is no doubt that despite all the Fed's best efforts that we are in a deflationary period now and will be for the foreseeable future.
gabyjan wrote:
Do you mean Volcker? Or Ben?
MrM
we agree.
ewwwww. there's an heir piece over there, gross dude.
How come glass steagel act can be inacted in less than a year back in 32-33, yet were sitting here 3 years down the road without any financial reforms....must be those damn lobbyists...Trains and cars only went so fast back in 1932....
duplicate.
TCA, agree with you too now. We just have to follow the policies. I think the world's governments will print enough money and hand out to citizens in such a manner that we will never see real sustained deflation in staples, food, energy. Rather I think we will see a repeat of the food riots. But maybe we have to wait for the next inflationary wave from the presses - the current one is running out of steam.
Krugman and solutions
ZIRP!
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
Unlike the stable of papers owned by the Times-
scone
make that either volker is old(he says he is) and bb(he should know that he is in deep do do)with public and i think also with the big bad banks(thats just a feeling,dont ask me why)
REBear wrote:
Not a lie if you believe it-
In a world with standards all of the governors would be dismissed.
The next Fed chief ought to have had a spread in their birthday suit, to be considered adequate for the job.
Cool.
Of the 14 Repubs who have decided, 7 will vote yes for Bernanke. 50% yes vote.
Of the 16 Dems who have decided 12 voted yes. 75% yes vote
Of the 2 independents, 1 voted yes.
or baby spitup on their shoulder.
I think it's cool that his associates also split a big sack
of money? Was that in the contract too, I wonder?
Volckers age doesn't bother me, like it would if he were running for President. His health seems good, he's flying around the country and doing everything else that would be required. And he just got engaged. So he has a lot to live for.
OT
2010: The Year of the Renter? - NY Times
"
Developers generally have already reduced their original projected monthly rents by a minimum of 10 percent. But the sales pitch often revolves around “net effective rent,” which takes free rent into account to bring the number down further. That could mean net rent for a studio starting at $2,000 in the Hudson Yards area and about $1,400 in downtown Brooklyn. The average rent for Manhattan studios in the last quarter of 2009 was $2,253, according to Prudential Douglas Elliman.
"
Big long article on Rental market in NYC. NYC studio for 2000$!
Comrade Misean is Dope wrote:
Arrogant hubris is the finest kind.
Jonathan wrote:
Ya', if only Bush hadn't signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal. Oh wait!
Citizen Cain is committing mediacide, on his fare well tour.
Rajesh wrote:
Don't you think those two are mutually exclusive?
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
Very odd case of causality, when the resignations began BEFORE the SCOTUS decision-
Quick everybody! Look for Juvie's clue!
Cinco-X is George Constanza!!!
No way Krugman could work with Shelby. They'd be duking it out before long.
REBear wrote:
True, unless he withdraws first!
Sounds like the big 30% hit to Bay Area rents in '01. They almost totally recovered since, though I wouldn't be so optimistic in this case (nor would I be shocked if Bay rents re-explored those lows in the near future).
Cinco, you might want to research that little thread a tad deeper.
Comrade Misean is Dope wrote:
Correct; it's important to remember that the size of govt has been getting bigger, not smaller. Either they were regulating, or they've sucking on the govt. teat and should be fired-
maybe dont know but my understanding (from wikis' fed reserve,board of governors)is that it would have to be from said board of governors not from "outside" obama picks critters confirm.
wiki also has 2 vacancies on board, anyone know if spots have been filled?
He just got engaged? Whoo-hoooo.
Several things left out, CR:
There's no precedent for this, and as we all suspect, most of this paper will turn out to be as worthless as the Fannie and Freddie stuff.
volker the viking wrote:
Actually, the evolution of the job of the Fed from managing the money supply to managing the economy is part of the problem. If they'd let the economy "find its center", rather than constantly diddling this or that, we'd all have been better off. Compare the Depression of '21 and the Great Depression.
And Ben has connections to Krugman, so it could be seen as cronyism of a very obvious sort.
another question y'all
if we end the fed,how are we going to deal with all of the other central banks or are we going to be a loose cannon?
sorta like now.....
Badger boy wrote:
Aren't 60 votes required to confirm?
Get me 2 pints of I.V. League, stat!
For me the three economic Stooges are Clinton, Bush and Obama. Note Bush one raised Bush two!
Isn't the Fed Reserve still standing in contempt of court over the Bloomberg and Fox FOI rulings?? Is that still in the appeals process or is that too just a big giant
with no consequences despite the ruling?
volker the viking wrote:
What difference does it make? He was never funny or interesting.
I love my Valentine'ssssss, Kisses to AIG, Fannie and Freddie, General Motors, Unions and Wallstreet. You all are my fave's and hang in there, God's work should never be thought of as cheap.
We are the odd ones out. Every other central bank is exactly that - we are the only ones who have handed over the key element of our sovereignty to a private cartel with total opacity.
Sure there are consequences, but we can change the rules afterwards if your consequence looks like it needs a little helping invisible hand.
Chairman Frank says House panel to suggest abolishing Fannie, Freddie - washingtonpost.com
SNAFU wrote:
The Nobel committee gave the Peace Prize to a Terrorist and a guy that has never accomplished anything tangible in his life. And you'd take their opinion on something this important?
Lobbyist Ben Dover wrote:
Of course, Reagan started the stooge thing, when he open the casino for 24 hr a day, and throw out the rules.
gabyjan wrote:
Don't worry about it. Not going to happen. We'll get some reforms at the edges, I hope, but not revolutionary overhaul of the entire system. If Obama wanted a revolution, Ron Paul would have been standing behind him the other day. Significantly, Dr. Paul hasn't had much of a media blip on it, either.
Sorry to go so far O/T, but this article on the energy dynamics of the economy scared the roast beef out of me:
Question Everything: Economic dynamics - and the real danger
It quantifies my general concerns about the coming energy shortage, regardless of the economic system laid over it. How many humans can the planet sustain without cheap light crude?
Look at you ,rad Xinco...
Your righty-tighty street cred colors are ablaze nowadays.
SNAFU wrote:
I hope he doesn't. I wish
worshippers spend more of their political capital pushing Ben's nomination.
I would like to see real change in the midterm elections.
Gabyjan: That's what Basel II accord was all about. Coordination of policy of Central Bankers. When all this first appeared, remember the EU, UK, US, et.al. coming out to reassure everyone they would do 'whatever it takes' to stabilize the system through coordinated measures worldwide. Often they were at loggerheads over interest rate policies.
Basel II opened up a bunch of doors for globalization of banking, hedge funds, etc. Glass Steagall wasn't just a US policy and it too was abandoned over the pond.
It is why I found it soooo amusing the EU, UK and US could coordinate C4C but have yet to do anything meaningful towards coordinated banking/financial reform.
Jonathan wrote:
Senators don't sign bills into law; Presidents do, and that one was signed by the President in office in 1999-
Reagan helped fix this country. Problem is those who followed where incapable of governing and let the crooks run wild. Reagan never would have let this crap take place. IMO
greenchutes
loose cannon then,very very dangerous
I wonder what state ends up with a better health care deal, if their senator votes yea, on Ben.
scone wrote:
I think he has good intentions, just a little gullible and illiterate on how economics actually works. He would have been a great president during the time of the Robber Barons.
But he is smarter than Reagan.
RATM wrote:
Welll of course! They're useless for funding campaign coffers now-
TCA wrote:
All money is debt; but not all debt is money. Inflation goes up and down basically independently of the overall debt levels - for examples, in the late 30's debt plummetted but prices rose modestly. By contrast, it's closely tied to money levels, with M2 being best. The current shenanigans with Fed balances are grossly distorting M0 and M1, but M2 looks to be still accurate.
Comrade Peronista wrote:
Last paragraph...
Well creativity never showed up and luck has left the building.
adornosghost wrote:
Again, Big Government continues to get bigger, not smaller. What are they doing?
adornosghost wrote:
Reagan was emotional, not smart
Sometimes you need one, sometimes the other
Mr Slippery wrote:
500 million would be optimistic, but we can't go there, as we deal with delusion and superstition here. This is an economics board.
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
Oooohhhhhh! Calling me names!
An honestly earned dollar doesn't look any different than all the trillions of dollars conjured out of packaged air recently, but Gresham's Law doesn't apply here, because I can't tell the difference between good and bad money, can you?
adornosghost wrote:
He's fascinating, really. Some good ideas, some loony ideas. He'll never be President, he's too eccentric. And the military, intelligence, and foreign policy communities take a very dim view of his libertarianism.
"Reagan helped fix this country."
He was a mob/MCA employee who certinly 'fixed' things for the top 5% and the FIRE sector.
Back in '81 - the 'bad old days' - the worker/ceo comp ratio, gdp/debt ratio, RRE equity/debt ratio, average p/e on a stock - were all actually sustainable. He fixed that.
jd
what if the critters just tack health bill on back of bens confirmation?
Fair Economist wrote:
That may be true in the short term, but once debt reaches levels where it is not sustainable, e.g. incomes can't service it, then it becomes deflationary. Credit destruction and de-leveraging follow. That seems to be where we are today.
REBear wrote:
Need cloture - they don't have 60 votes - will a few vote 'yes' for cloture then 'no' later? That doesn't work so well anymore - not since Kerry's 'I was for it before I was against it' guffaw. Blows up in attack adds.
Government doing little about asteroids: report
| Reuters
Fair Economist wrote:
Someone posted a link yesterday showing that M0,1,and 2 were decreasing.
scone wrote:
Did he [Dr Paul] say if he supports Os proposed bank regulation?
MrM wrote:
Some of our worst Presidents were very smart; see Carter and Nixon-
I like you ,rad Xinco, but sometimes wonder if you are a fifth columnist in our midst.
I'm sure he considers it a cosmetic farce. It is.
Cinco-X wrote:
Cloture - vote to end debate - and 'yes' very necessary.
adornosghost wrote:
There 500 million in China alone in 1750. The world can support substantially more. The link to that was posted within the last few weeks. Look in old treads if you're interested.
Even if you think Reagan set the US on this disastrous course what did both parties do to change it since then. Makes it even worse when you think about it. How about we dig up Washington and blame his policies for today's.
Your state gets healthcare!
And your state gets healthcare!
And your state gets healthcare!
And your state gets healthcare!
And your state gets healthcare!
And your state gets healthcare!
And your state gets healthcare!
And your state gets healthcare!
And your state gets healthcare!
Lobbyist Ben Dover wrote:
Reagan tripled the national debt, was proponent a Military Kensianism. The sheeple lapped up his Electronic Nuenburg Rallies.
greenchutes wrote:
Were you aliveand cognizant of the economy back then? Ben Dover is correct-
Mr Slippery wrote:
Agreed. And now that the boomers are nearing the end of their peak spending years, I would expect further bouts of deflation. CRE, for example, especially retail. And the boomers are going to have to save like beavers, or stay in the workforce, both of which will keep wages from rising fast. And they'll have to sell their homes, if they can, to make up savings. So more deleveraging, stretching out 20 years or more.
No argument in terms of the other party in that era - Tip O was creating horrible social policy based on events surrounding the Boston Celtics at the time.
No need for 'reductio ad absurdum' attacks, LBD. The country was in decent shape when Ike left it. It was the series of war criminals with a deep hatred of hard money that subsequently trashed it.
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
No; I'm from 'Merica. SOme of you would fit in much better in Europe-
REBear wrote:
I can't find anything, but I only looked at the first couple of google pages.
Cinco-X wrote:
Those who defend the establishment tripe that the Slimes hoarks up, believe in that tripe, and it useless to argue with those who lap it up. The question to ask yourself is, do you do the same in reverse...so to speak?
dryfly wrote:
So a:
a vote in the low-50's "AYE"
is a nonstarter, right?
Regan always reminded me of Howdy Doody. I could almost see the strings when he moved.
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
I see Truman and Reagan doing the same thing historically, nadir & zenith.
Harry's stock went up immensely, and Ronnie's will plummet.
Just because you go into hock to win a game of chicken, isn't all that.
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
And it's FREE, cause Ben will just print the money!!!!!!
dryfly wrote:
Arrogant hubris is the finest kind.
scone wrote:
Not if healthcare is spent on them... consumption isn't just beamers and condos. Health care as a mechanism to inject money directly into pockets [around banker cuts] is highly underrated. It is as big a potential conduit as the military industrial complex & war on poverty ever was in the 60s & 70s [last big domestic inflation].
I can't see myself voting for Dr. Paul, but I might actually be a Republican if they weren't in bed with the fundamentalists. I just can't stand those people.
Cinco-X wrote:
Unless they get 60 votes to end debate [cloture] so as to allow a vote on re-appointment [all they need is 51 there].
Cinco-X wrote:
Cinco- we have been through this -- 1700 was the last time we were liveing on a real time energy situation on Earth, and we had 1 billion people. Of course, we had oceans full of fish, and several continents to plunder, and a relative intact ecosystem, We are currently living on a plundered planet, on life support.
This is just basic thermodynamics.
jd do you mean that literally or ?
dum luk wrote:
I don't remember freckles or that scary smile.
greenchutes wrote:
reductio ad absurdum is not an attack or a fallacy; it a valid logical argument. See:
Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thus, by admitting that your proposition was vunerable to "reductio ad absurdum", you've admitted it is incorrect-
Sorry 'bout that-
Why leave the country?
I live in this duchy, where a European movie star watches over us, and makes speeches and looks great doing it.
Cinco-X wrote:
He co-wrote some the most side splittingly funny SImpson episodes ever!
dryfly wrote:
Personally, every dollar I spend on health care is a dollar I don't spend elsewhere. Health care vacuums up cash into itself, and it's a bubble in the making. You can easily have an overall deflationary trajectory, with bubbles in various "asset" classes. So if we are going to spend on health care, let's find ways to make some money, like exporting medical technology and instrumentation. Make stuff here, sell it overseas. 2 birds with 1 stone.
REBear wrote:
At that rate, he will get through, but with only 65 votes. He needs 60, so it is close.
Interesting - and depressing - that Obama won't got to the mat for health care but he will for Bernanke.
scone wrote:
Only if you don't print more dollars.
Naaaah, I think he's a Felangalist.
dum luk
please dont forget the script and nancy cueing him his lines.
Time to go Dog shopping. Lost one this week and the other is very confused. not to mention it seems very quiet around here.
Comrade Misean is Dope wrote:
We went through this last night:
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
Yes, there were rumors about that before he got married.
broward wrote:
And you can't do that if you want foreigners to keep buying your debt. Or Bill Gross. The options are beginning to diminish. I predict Ben will start making negative noises about QE very soon. He knows which side his bread is buttered on, even if he is basically a clueless git.
adornosghost wrote:
Then why did you say:
"500 million would be optimistic, but we can't go there, as we deal with delusion and superstition here. This is an economics board."
gabyjan wrote:
Reagan was a Puppet, controlled by the elite, who had lost a bit of their control during the 70's. He was the one who pushed us over the cliff.
Lots of Felanagalists in Los Angeles, being Hollywood-adjacent.
scone wrote:
Nuclear weapons figure into this somehow.
Comrade Misean is Dope wrote:
He was never funny or interesting on either of his own shows-
Of course, that's just my perspective; the brass at NBC held in really high regard 7 months ago-
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
I live in this duchy, where a European movie star watches over us, and makes speeches and looks great doing it."
Hasta la vista, solvency
I don't think PK wants the job! May be he will change his mind.
The Bernanke Conundrum - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
.
.
"
As I see it, the two things that worry me about Bernanke stem from the same cause: to a greater degree than I had hoped, he has been assimilated by the banking Borg. In 2005, respectable central bankers dismissed worries about a housing bubble, ignoring the evidence; in the winter of 2009-2010, respectable central bankers are worried about nonexistent inflation rather than actually existing unemployment. And Bernanke, alas, has become too much of a respectable central banker.
That said, however, what is the alternative? Calculated Risk says we can do better. But can we, really?
It’s not that hard to think of people who have the intellectual chops for the job of Fed chair but aren’t fully part of the Borg. But it’s very hard to think of people with those qualities who have any chance of actually being confirmed, or of carrying the FOMC with them even if named as chairman (which is one reason why this suggestion is crazy). Does it make sense to deny Bernanke reappointment simply in order to appoint someone who would follow the same policies?
And yet, the Fed really needs to be shaken out of its complacency.
As I said, I’m agonizing.
"
Cinco-X wrote:
We have far fewer resources, and a planet that is struggling to maintain equilibrium. We will see.
I could be missing something (and probably am, considering the feedback loops).
What was the most humans, one single man-made weapon could take out in one fell swoop, in 1700?
Cinco-X wrote:
Then why make the initial point?
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
Never suggested you leave-
Cinco-X wrote:
There's hope in there somewhere.
lobbyist ben dover
find out if you can take "other" dog with you and let him/her pick out new dog.
Comrade Misean is Dope wrote:
Ahhh'll be back.
Cinco-X wrote:
M1 has going up although it dropped precipitously in the very last report. It's a noisy series and drops like this have happened several times over the past two years but an overall moderate increase has continued.
M2 is basically flat (presaging mild deflation)
broward wrote:
Not anymore. It's a MAD strategy, but with many against one this time. In fact, they are going to have to cut the military, sooner or later. It might take a Repub to do it, however. It's too bad Rummie is such an asshole, some of his modernization ideas were worthwhile. Now he's politically dead.
Does anyone know what would actually happen if Bernanke is not confirmed? Surely the Fed will always have a Chairman, or at the least someone as "Acting Chairman".Right?
Some possibilities:
* Bernanke stays as Chairman with "(Acting)" next to his name because he is unconfirmed, and continues on with full powers of Chairman (minus some resume credit)
* The 2nd in charge takes the office without any approvals whatsoever and become Acting Chairmam
* The President gets to place someone to be Acting Chairman (which could be Bernanke again, by the way)
* Some other body appoints an Acting Chairman (wouldn't THAT be something)
* The position is left vacant with nobody having the authority to serve as Acting Chairman, resulting in some of the Fed powers, that are explicitly limited to the Chairman, being unable to be used at all (i.e. a rudderless Fed)
Anyone know?
Comrade Misean is Dope wrote:
Which initial point?
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
Smallpox? Oh, that coevolved with our animal friends, but we did help make it.
gabyjan wrote:
We are taking the other dog with us. Thanks
Cinco-X wrote:
Keep clicking that in reply to button thingy...
jd
germ loaded blankets did pretty good job.
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
Many millions via Smallpox.
Smallpox Native American Plains Indian Genocide Pictures
from P Krugman's blog
"he [
Ben] has been assimilated by the banking Borg"
I thought we were the only
crowd.
Fair Economist wrote:
Thank you, FE, I've been looking for that graph for ages!
YouTube - See you at the party Richter!
Fair Economist wrote:
M2 is basically flat (presaging mild deflation)
My read on all three (shadowstat reconstruct of M3) is that the first derivatives are all negative.
Fair Economist wrote:
I agree, yet:
Comrade Peronista (profile) wrote (in reply to...) on Sat, 1/23/2010 - 10:50 am
Ben's been printin' his @$$ off for a year or more now and it's not helping. It's just throwing things further out or whack; just printing is not a solution.
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
With grape shot?..Perhaps 50 or so.
Looks like Bernanke comes to work the next day:
FRB: Federal Reserve Act: Section 10
Comrade Misean is Dope wrote:
This one?
I don't have cable
This one?
*Unlike the stable of papers owned by the Times- *
That's what i'm talkin' bout.
cinco-x
you have computer
you are online
online is where i watch my episods cbs,hula,tv.com nbc abc
come on join the fun
of course if you have dial up that may be hard to do.but then again getting on cr on dial up was interesting
lawyerliz wrote:
he ceded 12 million to be split amongst the 200 staff instead of taking it himself
why not
let them pay taxes at lower rates
good on him
lbd
great
Come to think of it, nuclear blackmail of Manhattan would create total havoc. And if you irradiated London, New York, Hong Kong, and a couple of other financial hubs, that would bring down the system very efficiently.
scone wrote:
Right now short-term interest Treasury rates are basically zero, which means foreigners (and most others) are too eager to buy government debt. They need to be less eager. IMO the Fed should print whatever is necessary to get short-term Treasuries to 2%. It's not like that would be a state of terror with respect to government finances!
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
Does it matter? Between 1800 and 1870, 10's of millions were killed in a civil war, one at a time. Was that less of a tragedy?
Si.
Faux news has their share of CFM pumped up, and looking gorgeous hard right beauties, as everybody knows that where the beautiful people are, in the Republican party.
Didja see Brown's speech, where he kept on trying to sell off his daughters, to the utter dismay of his wife?
Cinco-X wrote:
Yes, because it didn't involve me.
Corpocracy vs Democracy 2.0
infested economic team Dems take a big hit in Nov 2010 then he's done in 2012
IMO if Obama does not get rid much of
scone wrote:
They don't buy your debt then print even more.
Cinco-X wrote:
Well, he's been "printing" by buying MBS, which means the money is just pouring into the black hole of mortgage investor insolvency. If the printing were supporting a jobs program I think the results would be much different. And, it's not like he's got limits. If he needs to print 5 trillion instead of about 1.3, he can.
gabyjan wrote:
I have slow DSL, and kids that are constantly downloading crap like anime, and trojan's from shopping web sites. Besides, if I really wanted to watch Fox News, I wouuld. I've seen it in hotel rooms while traveling, and it's boring. They have maybe 4 hours of programming repeated on an endless loop. I wouldn't want to watch MSNBC either, especially with clowns like Olberman and Mathews-
republicans and democrats, same shit, 2 different piles....
I always find it funny when politics rear thier ugly head here.....
crooked sticks can't be straightened.....
Fair Economist wrote:
(1) Politically impossible. (2) Doesn't do anything about the asset bubbles. (3) Gives the squid yet another toy to distort markets with.
scone wrote:
The Fight Club ending.
km4 wrote:
...and 2011 and 2012 will be like hell when he is forced to strike deals with the Rs.
Comrade Misean is Dope wrote:
Uno or dos?
SNAFU wrote:
As I see it, the two things that worry me about Bernanke stem from the same cause: to a greater degree than I had hoped, he has been assimilated by the banking Borg
banking Borg? the flesh-free squid alternative!
edit: how about an icon? Borg cube, perhaps?
Fair Economist wrote:
The Great Reckoning theorizes that the Cold War was the Cold War because of the destructive potential of nuclear weapons.
Cinco-X wrote:
Compared to who? Do you have an example of a G7 economy, NOT printing that is making out better?
1) We already are printing and warehousing debt via the fed with zero political consequence. We don't need Pimco or the chinese to spread our ponzibucks
2) The total lack of investment capital in the middle classes going forward helps with that one
3) Inevitable and already distorted anyhow
scone wrote:
And the reverse - an inflationary trend with small local 'deflations' in some asset classes [like real estate].
Inflation is everywhere a monetary event. A snapshot at prices now or M2 now doesn't describe the realm of possible outcomes ahead of us. I think they print - you say they don't. We differ.
See ya - heading out for the day...
creditcriminalslovetarp wrote:
Yeah, it's not like politics has anything at all to do with the economy or the future.
"We could do better"
One word: Volcker.
The only weapon we've shied away from using is poisonous gas, because of the horrors that it inflicted on both sides in WW1, why can't we do the same with nuclear weapons, or are we on a crash-course with a self-fulfilling destiny of our own destruction?
The 2:15 flight to Mars is full, i'll see if I can't get on the redeye flight...
Mr Slippery wrote:
Are we implying that "Al Qaeda" is doing God's work?
Cinco-X wrote:
Identified - the vector of infection.
Yup good point.....let's see if Obama can morph a little to Harry S Truman** I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell**
"making out better?"
The Germans - they are infinitely more honest about their own problems and much less inclined to spew paper at every problem. Can they handle sharing a currency with the irish, spanish, greeks, etc, is the only issue.
REBear wrote:
2011!? Do you know something about some "unexpected" upcoming vacancies?
Cinco-X wrote:
Are we implying that "Al Qaeda" is doing God's work?
Blackhalo wrote:
Which G7 economy is not printing money?
scone wrote:
(1) maybe.
(2) Actually it does. Deficit-printing-push stimulus pushes up interest rates, popping bubbles. Zirp-pull, the current strategy, lowers rates (by definition!), exacerbating bubbles.
(3) Doesn't matter much; stimulus, depression, whatever, the game is the same for the squid (use manipulation of markets and policymakers to make $$$$$$$).
broward wrote:
Way, way more complicated than that. Throw in an almost religious hatred of Communism, a lot of paranoia, and competition for allies and resources. The oil concessions play a big part. And a small group of intellectuals who provided the narrative rationale-- the containment doctrine. This man, IMO, is the most important intellectual architect of the Cold War:
George F. Kennan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
With the critical change in the Senate and the possible messages that might be sending, it's going to be more difficult to pass further stimulus packages; thus, the heavy lifting, (e.g., QE 2.
will fall on the Fed if a second dip appears. Easy credit, free-money proponents will ensure that Bernanke stays at the helm, despite these noises we hear from the Senate. I'd be delighted (and surprised) to be proven wrong.
greenchutes wrote:
I've been saying that the Euro as a European wide currency can't last. It'll be the German currency along with Germany's bitch, the French-
Cinco-X wrote:
I suspect that 2011 will have some legislation, vacancies, or not. Has congress ever gone a full year without passing a bill?
gruntled wrote:
No President since Reagan has had a filibuster proof majority except for Obama. It's not the end of the world.
Serious question.
What if a huge number of people, including people from here, were to deluge media outlets with a "draft Volcker" message?
some investor guy wrote:
Wasn't there a deluge of the congress opposing the bailouts last year 99:1? What difference did that make? Seriously-
IMO the Fed should print whatever is necessary to get short-term Treasuries to 2%. It's not like that would be a state of terror with respect to government finances!
You can't be serious. Most of the debt is concentrated in the short end and we are still paying hundreds of billions in interest a year. At 2% how many extra hundreds of billions will be needed to be raised through taxes to cover? Or are we gonna just keep printing into eternity (ie. till the currency collapses)?
CR,
Glad to see you've changed your mind about Mr. Bernanke. I wonder if Roubini has changed his.
Fair Economist wrote:
That may be the theory, but but it may not work that way in practice-- the Law of Unintended Consequences hasn't been revoked. At any rate 'printing more' of anything is not a strategy the Administration can sell. Neither is raising interest rates. And restraining the squid is one of the essential goals of the Volcker rule. If Obama sticks with Volcker, that's the playbook.
We deluged our elected officials with the news that we the people didn't want to give away $700 Billion to the Unabankers, and they listened to us and turned it down, but then after padding the bill with 448 extra pages and $87 Billion, it passed like a charm...
I could care less...the outcome will be the same....track record holds true....
some investor guy wrote:
But those in congress are so much smarter and so much better informed and have a much better understanding of the important things. We just don't understand.
Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
tens of thousands, by fire