Recent comments by RE

curious wrote:

RE wrote:

Did CR do a separate post (not part of a schedule post) in prior months and especially since you accuse him of bias, in the July/August time frame?

He apologized in advance for the September number.

So this is the so-called "apology"? Instead of an apology this is a professional explanation of the variability of this data series! CR very unbiasedly explains the context to the reader.

Thursday: Unemployment Claims, Durable Goods 

On August Durable Goods from MarketWatch: What goes up must come down: Durable-goods orders set to sink

After flying high in July, orders for U.S. durable goods are likely to take a big dive in August.

But don’t pay any heed. The record 22.6% surge in orders in July was propelled mainly by a pile of new contracts for Boeing jets. Those orders tumbled in August and will drag orders into deep negative territory. Economists polled by MarketWatch forecast a 17.3% in new orders.

Strip out airplanes and autos, however, and Wall Street expects orders for durable goods to rise by 1% or more in August.

Objectivity isn't your strong-suit. ---

Rob Dawg wrote:

RE wrote:

Can you back that up because I don't see it?

Top hit: Tuesday: New Home Sales, Case-Shiller House Prices, Durable Goods and More

No post

Did CR do a separate post (not part of a schedule post) in prior months and especially since you accuse him of bias, in the July/August time frame?

Rob Dawg wrote:

CR often mentions it but only posts when it is good news. Check the history.

Can you back that up because I don't see it?

Google

Rob Dawg wrote:

Like Tuesday was Durable goods?

What was so significant about durable goods? It's a noisy series.

Graph: Manufacturers' New Orders: Durable Goods - FRED - St. Louis Fed

energyecon wrote:

So a little 32 million barrel purchase at today's low, low price of call it $44/barrel is a mere $1.4 billion (plus change).

Yep, in 2009 they paid $52.

sm_landlord wrote:

Hard to tell - I don't know what that 2011 termination means in terms of the budget.

Edit: i.e budgeted not spent, or defunded, or ???

It appears to need a budget authorization now as the old contract expired or was cancelled.

However, it seems pretty full at 695 million barrels with a total capacity of 727 million barrels.

Page not found | Department of Energy

sm_landlord wrote:

Did they ever refill the "strategic reserve" with all of this extra oil sloshing around?

Is there any money allocated in the budget?

Jackdawracy wrote:

Lemmme consult my early 19th century cookbook and get back to you on it.

You can always articulate your disagreement with the premise.

Debt 2008 266 Billion vs 240 Billion Bailout....... I say they could have paid of the Entire Debt at the Start!! But that wasnt the Plan.....

The 2011 and later figures include the full amount.

The second bailout programme, was finally ratified by all parties in February 2012, and by effect extended the first programme, meaning a total of €240 billion were to be transferred at regular tranches throughout the period from May 2010 until December 2014.

Because of austerity GDP crashed making it harder to pay back a lower amount.

Yoringe wrote:

AFAIK,.the whole Greek " Help" Money was more than the entire Initial Debt! But Greece has now far more Debt!!

Not really.

Nominal national government debt went down from 355 billion in 2011 to 316 billion in 2014.

• Greece - National debt 2014 | Statistic

[Because of austerity GDP crashed making it harder to pay back a lower amount.]

Dated but still valid. I'm sure U.S. unions are to blame...

How Germany Builds Twice As Many Cars As The U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice As Much - Forbes

In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.

Pigged Lobbyist Ben Dover wrote:

Bottom line is they both killed Detroit.

German automakers also use union labor. Do you attribute their success to unionization as well?

Lobbyist Ben Dover wrote:

Why didn't Unions buy stock, buy a seat on the board and get their share of profits? They would have been responsible for results.

Why get into an area (corporate management) in which you lack expertise? Seems smart to me.

Pigged poicv2.0 wrote:

So you're saying 7:1 price to income ratio in many parts of California are sustainable?

That house has a Zesimate of 500k and median income of 69k.

Every country has more and less desirable areas. The U.S. average is 2.62 which is very low.

Did you notice the German AVERAGE is 6.61, Norway 7.74 and the U.K. 8.63!

Rob Dawg wrote:

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

Precisely. It's not like houses will be allowed to find their market-clearing price, so we'll have to count on leveraged speculation...

Here's a typical offering in my ghetto: 2074 Marco Dr, Camarillo, CA 93010 is For Sale - Zillow

The bubble didn't burst, it just paused to catch another lungful of helium.

It's a scary bubble when price/income is the second lowest in the world behind Tanzania.

Talk about fighting the last war...

Property Prices Index by Country 2015

Jackdawracy wrote:

Meaningless in CPI context today.

So substitution works as intended.

Antipodes wrote:

They are relatively easy to find, but none are particularly inexpensive. And, I might add, neither is chicken.

Where in the U.S. can you buy Dunghill fowl, capons, partridges, and even pigeons and ducks?

And even more important, should their market-share at around 1800 influence the CPI today, i.e. no substitution?

Antipodes wrote:

Quite a few of these are still available.

Of course but except chicken and turkey in which supermarket at what price?

Substitution at work. What, no pasta, no rice recipes except for pudding?

A sample from American Cookery, by Amelia Simmons

Error 403

...
Poultry—how to choose.

Having before stated that the female in almost every instance, is preferable to the male, and peculiarly so in the Peacock, which, tho' beautifully plumaged, is tough, hard, stringy, and untasted, and even indelicious—while the Pea Hen is exactly otherwise, and the queen of all birds.

So also in a degree, Turkey.

Hen Turkey, is higher and richer flavor'd, easier fattened and plumper—they are no odds in market.

Dunghill Fowls, are from their frequent use, a tolerable proof of the former birds.

Chickens, of either kind are good, and the yellow leg'd the best, and their taste the sweetest.

Capons, if young are good, are known by short spurs and smooth legs.

All birds are known, whether fresh killed or stale, by a tight vent in the former, and a loose open vent if old or stale; their smell denotes their goodness; speckled rough legs denote age, while smooth legs and combs prove them young.

A Goose, if young, the bill will be yellow, and will have but few hairs, the bones will crack easily; but if old, the contrary, the bill will be red, and the pads still redder; the joints stiff and difficultly disjointed; if young, otherwise; choose one not very fleshy on the breast, but fat in the rump.

Ducks, are similar to geese.

Wild Ducks, have redder pads, and smaller than the tame ones, otherwise are like the goose or tame duck, or to be chosen by the same rules.

Wood Cocks, ought to be thick, fat and flesh firm, the nose dry, and throat clear.

Snipes, if young and fat, have full veins under the wing, and are small in the veins, otherwise like the Woodcock.

Partridges, if young, will have black bills, yellowish legs; if old, the legs look bluish; if old or stale, it may be perceived by smelling at their mouths.

Pigeons, young, have light red legs, and the flesh of a colour, and prick easily—old have red legs, blackish in parts, more hairs, plumper and loose vents—so also of grey or green Plover, Blade Birds, Thrash, Lark, and wild Fowl in general.
...

Yoringe wrote:

Extinct or Protected Species are part of the Recipes.....

Bear claws, etc.

Jackdawracy wrote:

What's with the 100 year old cookbook gambit?

We have cookbooks from 100 and 200 years ago. The difference in recipe ingredients between today and then is striking. Voluntary and forced substitution at work.

Bruce in Tennessee wrote:

That will take time of course and the concern about falling prices is the short term effect, the deflationary spiral I mentioned above. It seems that the world’s central bankers do not trust the capitalist system to adjust to those lower prices.

What BS!

He doesn't mention the GD or any other sample period of success.

In a society full of varying length contracts, formal or otherwise, how can prices fall relatively uniformly in order to prevent [the huge risk] of a downward spiral? See sticky wages as an example.

poicv2.0 wrote:

I can barely see on the blog with all the Straw Men crowding around in front of me.

I miss links, too.

arthur_dent wrote:

anyone who believes the ratio of credit/income is limited(even for nations) or that not all investments are equivalent, is clearly a dope.

Straw men are the refuge of the intellectually desperate.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

A little hedonic substitution and you won't even recognize the place!

Aside of rhetoric, can any inflation measure NOT using substitution be taken even remotely seriously?

Take a 100 yo cookbook and check ingredients.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

Keyn(e)sian reality has a bias.

And Austrianism has no basis anywhere?

skk wrote:

gawd. of course they do. I have one word for you plastics MMT.

Help me here RE:

Don't forget that MMT also relies on enough interested parties purchasing government bonds. It is not a free-for-all.

vtcodger wrote:

The drive for the Euro has been motivated by politics not economics. The aim has been to link Germany and France so closely as to make a future European war impossible, and to set the stage for a federal United States of Europe

I believe it was for both political and economic reasons and it mostly worked IMO.

However, IMO, where it went wrong was in the assumption that Germany would continue to understand its benefits over the long haul despite its costs.

Adenauer knew very well that Germany by itself after WWII could not exert its political and economic power. It needed the much less threatening cover of the EU to have a say

However, the lessons of history are easily and quickly forgotten and populist German politicians revel in German exceptionalism instead of reality. Hardly anybody points out German exports did particularly well since 1999 despite declining investment because of a much larger and more open "domestic" market as well as a lower currency due to participation in the Euro of Europe's weak sisters.

A separate Germany would still be quickly viewed as a pariah and its currency would quickly rise making it only marginally competitive.

Rob Dawg wrote:

Exchanging old loans for larger longer more expensive loans and continuing to spend more than you have is NOT austerity. Don't blame austerity.

What is it that you don't understand regarding:

Nominal national government debt went down from 355 billion in 2011 to 316 billion in 2014.

Greece is another case study for the pro-austerity crowd.

Nominal national government debt went down from 355 billion in 2011 to 316 billion in 2014.

• Greece - National debt 2014 | Statistic

Yet debt to GDP went UP from 146% of GDP to 175% over the same period.

Greece Government Debt to GDP | 1980-2015 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Investment, because of declining demand, went to essentially ZERO mirroring the U.S. behavior during he Great Depression.

Gross fixed capital formation (% of GDP) in Greece

Austerity again proved its futility.

Citizen AllenM wrote:

And what makes me laugh is they think the kids are going to pay it- lol

I expect it to be paid just like the generations before us did.

http://i.imgur.com/evphS94.jpg?2

EngineerJim wrote:

Parents can't leave their kids debt.
Only the government can leave their kids debt.

If debt is your primary concern, then I'm sure you appreciate the Obama admin's best management of it in multiple generations, right?

Graph: All Sectors; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level / Gross Domestic Product - FRED - St. Louis Fed

curious wrote:

If it weren't for winter, we'd be there!

You criticize CR's analysis and predictions a lot but, based on quick inspection, your record is atrocious. Your points are almost exclusively derived from bank failure predictions, i.e. mostly luck and definitely not from keen anticipation of economic conditions.

Why would any reasonable person listen to you?

Bets placed by curious | Hoocoodanode?

Comrade Kristina wrote:

Yeah, Pearl was definitely a woman. She and I emailed often back when she was around.

Pretty darn likely.

Japan Nuclear Update | Hoocoodanode?

Kids. Home for several days. Can't get caught here.

Must resume former identity. Tap Your Heels Together Three Times

(Pearl leaves blog waaaaaay before she she wants to. Searches closets for high heels, vacuum cleaner, crock pot.)

Yoringe wrote:

Investment in what, thats the Question....

Investment Definition (GFCF)

Gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) is defined in the national accounts as acquisition less disposals of produced fixed assets, i.e. assets intended for use in the production of other goods and services for a period of more than a year.

Acquisition includes both purchases of assets (new or second-hand) and the construction of assets by producers for their own use.

The term produced assets signifies that only those assets produced as a result of a production process recognised in the national accounts are included. The national accounts also record transactions in non-produced assets such as land, oil and mineral reserves for example; which are recorded as non-produced assets in the balance sheet accounts and not as GFCF.

Acquisition prices of capital goods include transport and installation charges, as well as all specific taxes associated with purchase.

Yoringe wrote:

Recovery or Kick Me ?

Can you explain how investment relates to can-kicking?

Pigged KidPsych wrote:

Ilargi: Brussels is a Bunch of Criminals | naked capitalism

I have no respect for Ives. She posts anything as long as it agrees with her views.

I need to preface that I support QE only as long as large fiscal support is absent in a fragile economy and not likely in the near to mid-term. I chose investment because it benefits the most from QE and is the real savings account of a nation.

From the article:

In order to achieve the stated goals, money would have to reach the real economy. As it stands, the best Draghi can do is to ‘hope’ it will. That’s not enough by a mile. This is not about doubts over its effectiveness, that’s baloney, we know it’s not effective when it comes to the stated goals. It will still leave Europe with no growth, and deeper deflation, and now €1.1 trillion deeper in debt. While banks can grow their reserves.

Graph: Gross Fixed Capital Formation in United States© - FRED - St. Louis Fed

The articles quotes:

It was promised that it [UK QE] would yield new investment. It has not. It was promised that it would “pump money into the economy”. It has not. It was also feared that printing money would lead to hyper-inflation. It has not, for the simple reason that no one gets to spend the money. It is a bookkeeping transaction between a central bank and a commercial bank. It means nothing as long as banks are told to build up their reserves. Money in circulation matters. The whole of Europe, including Britain, is chronically short of demand, which is why deflation is such a menace.

And here are the facts on UK investment (it recovered reasonably well since 2009):

UK Gross Fixed Capital Formation

Of course the article talks about investment and jobs but boldly omits showing the data!

KidPsych wrote:

Ilargi: Brussels is a Bunch of Criminals | naked capitalism

I have no respect for Ives. She posts anything as long as it agrees with her views.

I need to preface that I support QE only as long as large fiscal support is absent and not likely in the near to mid-term. I chose investment because it benefits the most from QE and is the real savings account of a nation.

From the article:

In order to achieve the stated goals, money would have to reach the real economy. As it stands, the best Draghi can do is to ‘hope’ it will. That’s not enough by a mile. This is not about doubts over its effectiveness, that’s baloney, we know it’s not effective when it comes to the stated goals. It will still leave Europe with no growth, and deeper deflation, and now €1.1 trillion deeper in debt. While banks can grow their reserves.

Graph: Gross Fixed Capital Formation in United States© - FRED - St. Louis Fed

The articles quotes:

It was promised that it [UK QE] would yield new investment. It has not. It was promised that it would “pump money into the economy”. It has not. It was also feared that printing money would lead to hyper-inflation. It has not, for the simple reason that no one gets to spend the money. It is a bookkeeping transaction between a central bank and a commercial bank. It means nothing as long as banks are told to build up their reserves. Money in circulation matters. The whole of Europe, including Britain, is chronically short of demand, which is why deflation is such a menace.

And here are the facts on UK investment (it recovered reasonably well since 2009):

UK Gross Fixed Capital Formation

Of course the article talks about investment and jobs but boldly omits showing the data!

Interesting that the Fed is suddenly responsible for Swiss inflation which BTW is among the lowest in the world.

http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/switzerland/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-switzerland.aspx

dilbert dogbert wrote:

Are the Finns considered Nordic? Don't the Norwegians, Danes and Swedes tell jokes about them?

Not in this particular context.

Norse mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yoringe wrote:

But my Point was: If Iceland has a Parliament running since over thousand Years, the US can hardly claim to have "invented" Modern Democracy....

I agree but I'm bit sensitive in regard to the highly biased Nordic worship by certain well-defined groups in Germany.

Yoringe wrote:

Tynwald was also the first place to offer universal suffrage in 1893.

What about NZ?

1893: New Zealand is the first nation to introduce universal suffrage by awarding the vote to women (universal male suffrage had been in place since 1879).

Yoringe wrote:

Thats where Modern Democracy started IMO...

Your bias for patriotic expediency is just as evident.

History of democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yoringe wrote:

Yeah, HCN that Modern Democracy included Slavery & Women Surpression..... :clapclap:

Don't forget the landowners bit.

poicv2.0 wrote:

Mideast and much of American oil, BP, WW1, Churchill, the Empire and the Royal Navy, most of the world's central banks and money printing presses, American politicians -- what do these have in common? All owned and/or controlled by The Family."

Since I just read that the U.S. is the birthplace of modern democracy, anything is possible as long as the belief is strong.

Belmont wrote:

Happy the European tourists will be unable to afford to come to the birthplace of modern democracy now that their currency is toilet paper

History is not your forte.

Jackdawracy wrote:

Yeah, those damn Krauts not getting on board the free money express, don't they realize that fiscal sanity could ruin everything?

Or not. Germany needs investment - badly, not deflation.

Germany Investment as percent of GDP

sdtfs wrote:

Hey, hey!!! Over here! I can save you twice as much TWICE as fast!

Thank you.

vtcodger wrote:

I know it's a long time ago, but I'm curious if you know why Alexander Hamilton thought a central bank would be a good idea. I gather he was hard over on the need for it, and the need to have structured as a private corporation. But I've never seen a clear explanation of why.

This is a pretty good summation IMO.

http://philadelphiafed.org/publications/economic-education/first-bank.pdf

One prominent architect of the fledgling country — Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury —had ideas about how to solve some of these problems. Unlike other founding fathers, who thought that the United States should remain primarily agricultural, Hamilton researched the history and economic structure of other countries, especially France and Britain, for ideas on how to build a nation. Although Hamilton culled valuable information about public finance from the writings of French Minister of Finance Jacques Necker, it was England — America's recently defeated colonial overlord — that provided Hamilton with sound foundations for creating a viable economic system. Hamilton consulted the works of philosophers David Hume and Adam Smith. In addition, England's use of public debt interested Hamilton because this type of funding, which had helped to build England's military might and pay for its wars, accounted, at least in part, for that country's prosperity and had enabled the British to build an empire. Hamilton reasoned that an economic structure that incorporated public debt could deliver much-needed capital to that such an institution could issue paper money (also called banknotes or currency), provide a safe place to keep public funds, offer banking facilities for commercial transactions, and act as the government's fiscal agent, including collecting the government's tax revenues.

Looking across the Atlantic Ocean once again for ideas, Hamilton used the charter of the Bank of England as the basis for his proposed national bank. Although similar to the Bank of England, Hamilton's proposed bank differed in several ways. For one thing, each shareholder in the Bank of England had one vote. Under Hamilton's plan, the number of votes would be determined by the size of each shareholder's investment. Also, the proposed national bank would have a maximum ratio of loans to specie (gold or silver), whereas the Bank of England had no such requirement. Furthermore, the government would own 20 percent of the U.S. bank; the Bank of England was privately owned. However, both institutions were prohibited from trading in commodities, and both were required to obtain legislative approval before making loans to states or local governments.

Yoringe wrote:

Instead of Skiing in Norway, go to Finnland. Eat Belgium Chocolate instead of Swiss one.

People are NOT amused! : MarieAntoinette:

If one only squints at the asset side of the balance sheet one easily deludes oneself into feeling rich.

Fortunately, there are a few people like Schmidt who look at both sides and mention reality.