Strange Weather so far this summer. Sometimes we have to wear a jacket while going to the state fair which starts August 20 and ends Labor day. The leaves will start to turn color in mid August. Basically we have 2.5 months of summer left this year. Not very happy
3 feet of snow blankets Adirondacks’ Whiteface Mountain after Memorial Day weekend storm
For those of you who have the time and inclination, a very interesting story on the India pharma company Ranbaxy and their fake generics. Ah, the joys of globalism! And catch a load of those two grinning, oily f*cks who head the firm. Not to mention, where was the FDA in all of this? OH, wait, maybe the persons in charge in Washington are posting away on this blog (and others) instead of doing their job?
Things being properly labeled as to their contents is a key part of free markets;
But such a thing is only possible with effective regulation, and some seem to think that any regulation destroys the free market.
(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-05-27 07:57:27
But such a thing is only possible with effective regulation, and
Anyone with any sense believes in _some_ amount of effective regulation; properly labeling things is a fine example of sensible regulation, as it lets the purchasers make good decisions, and thus express what they value to the market, allowing it to adapt to their expressed needs.
some seem to think that any regulation destroys the free market.
Some amount of regulation (such as proper labeling in the interest of fraud avoidance) is strictly required to have a healthy free market.
Personally, I don’t think too much regulation is required, though, short of telling markets accurately what you are selling.
Comment by alpha-sloth
2013-05-27 08:59:09
Personally, I don’t think too much regulation is required, though, short of telling markets accurately what you are selling.
How about worker and environmental safety?
Comment by Mr. Smithers
2013-05-27 09:31:22
Ronald Coase disagrees with all of you. Regulation in the long run just makes free markets inefficient and hurts everyone.
But what does he know? He just on a Nobel Economics prize.
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-05-27 09:37:04
He just on a Nobel Economics prize.
If you put much stock in that, you must agree with everything that Krugman says as well. And Obama, for that matter.
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-05-27 09:41:00
How about worker and environmental safety?
Great point, alpha. And I do care about both of those.
Unfortunately, our free markets ALREADY allow us to express our collective degree of concern about both of those issues—and the indisputable answer is that Americans don’t care at all. We continue to buy our cr@p from the lowest-cost producers, where both of those are clearly ignored.
Or maybe we merely don’t care as long as the maimed workers and polluted locales are far from our sight.
Comment by tj
2013-05-27 09:47:09
Unfortunately, our free markets ALREADY allow us to express our collective degree of concern about both of those issues
actually no, the free markets have already been circumvented. worker’s comp is one example. it sheltered employers from lawsuits by giving the best possible care to injured workers. it seems like a fair compromise at first. but if employers had to worry about huge lawsuits, they’d take safety into much more consideration that they do now.
free markets are being strangled in this country. everywhere they are being allowed less and less to work. and we all suffer for it.
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 10:01:00
“Ronald Coase disagrees with all of you. Regulation in the long run just makes free markets inefficient and hurts everyone.”
Please cite a reference to where he said this, or we will know you are just dumping more BS on our plates.
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-05-27 10:01:51
actually no, the free markets have already been circumvented.
I think you missed my point: people already choose less environmental protection, and fewer worker protections, with every single dollar that they choose to send… to CHINA.
I call BS on your other point, though: Workman’s Comp does _not_ prevent people from suing for harm caused by an unsafe work environment.
Comment by tj
2013-05-27 10:20:29
I think you missed my point: people already choose less environmental protection, and fewer worker protections, with every single dollar that they choose to send… to CHINA.
i didn’t miss your point. your point isn’t valid. people are choosing a product, not a regulation or lack of one.
Workman’s Comp does _not_ prevent people from suing for harm caused by an unsafe work environment.
not in all cases, but most cases. if an employer gets people injured he pays a little higher premium, but rarely gets sued.
Comment by In Colorado
2013-05-27 12:54:24
i didn’t miss your point. your point isn’t valid. people are choosing a product, not a regulation or lack of one.
And in many cases we have no choice from where our consumer goods come from, other than maybe selecting between China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, etc.
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-05-27 17:09:17
i didn’t miss your point. your point isn’t valid. people are choosing a product, not a regulation or lack of one.
I think the point is still valid; earlier on in the globalization process, it was sometimes possible to buy very similar products that were “Made in the USA”, vs cheaper products that were made elsewhere with no environmental or worker protections. The masses chose to buy the “Made in China” versions at Wal-mart, because they were significantly cheaper.
Things being properly labeled as to their contents is a key part of free markets; market forces only work if people know what they are bidding upon.
No it isn’t.
In a free market, a producer that presents the best value will gain market share. This value might include the type of labeling that you prefer.
Misrepresenting what you are selling or even poorly representing will exist in a free market. You are free to avoid poor value choices.
(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by alpha-sloth
2013-05-27 07:55:03
You are free to avoid poor value choices.
How do you do that?
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-05-27 08:00:55
You are free to avoid poor value choices.
Without knowing what you are buying, how can you possibly avoid poor-value choices?
Comment by tj
2013-05-27 08:33:22
Without knowing what you are buying, how can you possibly avoid poor-value choices?
although i’m not going to complain about such a small infringement on the free market, CharlieTango is right.
how can you avoid poor-value choices? don’t buy the product that doesn’t have the info on the label that you’d like to be there. if enough people do that, they’ll either have to put the info on the label or suffer profit losses. people will do anything for profit you know.. even work.
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-05-27 08:44:57
don’t buy the product that doesn’t have the info on the label that you’d like to be there.
And when the monopoly-provider doesn’t offer you the info that you want, how do you express your desire to have it there?
Free markets (and I am a huge believer in them) only allow you to express your opinions among the palette of options that are available for purchase in the market.
In other words, you cannot vote with your dollars for an option that is not available for purchase.
Comment by alpha-sloth
2013-05-27 09:00:25
don’t buy the product that doesn’t have the info on the label that you’d like to be there.
What if they put the info on the label, but it’s not true?
Comment by tj
2013-05-27 09:07:52
And when the monopoly-provider doesn’t offer you the info that you want, how do you express your desire to have it there?
by refusing to buy their shoddy product.
Free markets (and I am a huge believer in them)
i believe you.
only allow you to express your opinions among the palette of options that are available for purchase in the market.
true, but that’s enough.
In other words, you cannot vote with your dollars for an option that is not available for purchase.
that’s not correct. if the product is of no use or causes harm, no one would buy it, and that’s not a sustainable business model.
Comment by tj
2013-05-27 09:10:25
In other words, you cannot vote with your dollars for an option that is not available for purchase.
then you sue their ass off for fraud and they learn an important lesson in their pocket book or maybe go out of business.
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-05-27 09:35:45
by refusing to buy their shoddy product.
So… let’s take some examples:
1) Would you refuse to buy gasoline from Standard Oil (who would have remained the only oil company in an unfettered free market) because you didn’t really need to drive your car to work so that you afford to feed your family?
2) Would you refuse to heat your house and keep your children warm, because the only practical way to do so would be to buy natural gas from your local utility company, and you do not approve of the way that they are purchasing that gas—like say, perhaps a small fraction of the gas that they buy is produced by fracking?
that’s not correct. if the product is of no use or causes harm, no one would buy it, and that’s not a sustainable business model.
It’s not just products that are of “no use” that are of concern.
My point is still valid: you can vote with your dollars only for options that are available for sale; you cannot express your preference for options that are not available to vote upon with your dollars.
then you sue their ass off for fraud and they learn an important lesson in their pocket book or maybe go out of business.
None of the cases I was talking about had anything to do with fraud.
Comment by tj
2013-05-27 09:37:38
i’m sorry for the copy-paste error.
i meant that answer to be for alpha..
What if they put the info on the label, but it’s not true?
then you sue their ass off for fraud and they learn an important lesson in their pocket book or maybe go out of business.
Comment by tj
2013-05-27 10:10:17
1) Would you refuse to buy gasoline from Standard Oil (who would have remained the only oil company in an unfettered free market) because you didn’t really need to drive your car to work so that you afford to feed your family?
no, it wouldn’t have been the only oil company in an unfettered free market.
2) Would you refuse to heat your house and keep your children warm, because the only practical way to do so would be to buy natural gas from your local utility company, and you do not approve of the way that they are purchasing that gas—like say, perhaps a small fraction of the gas that they buy is produced by fracking?
if it were a big enough issue for me, i’d find a different way to keep my children warm.
My point is still valid: you can vote with your dollars only for options that are available for sale; you cannot express your preference for options that are not available to vote upon with your dollars.
you don’t need other options. refusing to buy the product is enough, if enough people refuse.
Comment by Carl Morris
2013-05-27 10:16:43
no, it wouldn’t have been the only oil company in an unfettered free market.
???
Monopoly is quite natural in a free market unless you interfere to prevent it.
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-05-27 10:23:58
Monopoly is quite natural in a free market unless you interfere to prevent it.
+infinity.
With the amount of money that Standard Oil could and did spend to bankrupt their smaller competitors, their monopoly was _guaranteed_ to continue. They were famous for this type of anti-competitive behavior.
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-05-27 10:25:48
refusing to buy the product is enough, if enough people refuse.
And your point is completely specious—because in many cases there is not an effective option to avoid buying their product. There are real “needs” in life, and you seem to be trying to ignore that fact.
Comment by tj
2013-05-27 10:29:30
Monopoly is quite natural in a free market unless you interfere to prevent it.
a true monopoly can only happen when an outside authority protects it. such is the case with the us post office or carlos slims’s telemex.
att wasn’t a monopoly like most people think it was. anyone could have gone in competition with it. but no one did. why? because they provided their product at a price that no one wanted to try to compete against. but they were free to try if they wanted. if at&t’s prices were to high, someone would tried to garner a little of their market. they weren’t the bad guys as they were portrayed.
carl, if you don’t believe me, spend a few minutes and look up the true definition of a monopoly. simply, monopolies are impossible in a free market.
Comment by alpha-sloth
2013-05-27 10:29:38
then you sue their ass off for fraud and they learn an important lesson in their pocket book or maybe go out of business.
How do I prove that the medicine they sold me was fake? Or that the hamburger they sold me was dog meat?
Comment by tj
2013-05-27 10:35:07
because in many cases there is not an effective option to avoid buying their product.
that’s only because of one of two reasons. either
1. some outside authority like a government is interfering with the market,
or
2. there are enough people satisfied with the product to overcome the negative aspects of those who aren’t.
Comment by tj
2013-05-27 10:41:00
How do I prove that the medicine they sold me was fake? Or that the hamburger they sold me was dog meat?
by having it independently test the way it’s mostly done. your questions are getting stupid, so i’m not going to answer them anymore.
Comment by alpha-sloth
2013-05-27 10:54:23
by having it independently test the way it’s mostly done
So I just need to run to the lab after I go grocery shopping or purchase medicine, and have everything tested? Sounds very expensive and time-consuming.And how can I trust the lab?
Consuming is only a portion of a free market. You can influence the market by becoming a provider or an investor.
Comment by Carl Morris
2013-05-27 12:44:17
carl, if you don’t believe me, spend a few minutes and look up the true definition of a monopoly. simply, monopolies are impossible in a free market.
Link? I can look up monopoly all day but I suspect you’ll want to point to a different definition since you used the words “true definition”.
Anyway, you can quibble over specific definitions but we all know how the word is commonly used, including for the purposes of this discussion. I have a soft spot for libertarian philosophy but this sort of thing is why I’m not registered as an L. You can argue all day about what would happen under perfect circumstances but that does us no good. In reality, monopoly (as the term is commonly used) is almost guaranteed in an unregulated market.
Comment by polly
2013-05-27 16:52:05
Monopolies are impossible in a free market with ZERO (or near zero) costs of entry. Energy production isn’t that sort of market. Neither is agriculture.
Comment by tj
2013-05-27 17:16:03
Monopolies are impossible in a free market with ZERO (or near zero) costs of entry.
this is a myth like the broken window fallacy.
cost of entry isn’t relevant. what’s relevant is the profit potential.
if the profit potential is high enough, it will attract investor groups. the money will get raised.
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-05-27 17:23:23
cost of entry isn’t relevant. what’s relevant is the profit potential.
FAIL.
What investor in their right mind is going to put up significant entry-costs, if the fore-ordained outcome is that the monopoly will drop prices _temporarily_ to below your break-even point, forcing you out of business?
A zero cost-of-entry is thus required.
if the profit potential is high enough, it will attract investor groups. the money will get raised.
Sure, you will have no problem raising money from investors who like to lose money.
Comment by tj
2013-05-27 17:31:28
FAIL
melodramatic aren’t you?
What investor in their right mind is going to put up significant entry-costs, if the fore-ordained outcome is that the monopoly will drop prices _temporarily_ to below your break-even point, forcing you out of business?
they won’t take the risk unless they think the risk is worth it. if the profit potential is high enough, they’ll take the risk.
A zero cost-of-entry is thus required.
no such thing as a zero cost of entry.
Sure, you will have no problem raising money from investors who like to lose money.
you prove you have no idea what you’re talking about.
“let’s us see how well deregulation and an ‘unfettered’ free market would work”
A free market is more dangerous than a bureaucratically central planned system? There are an overwhelming number of examples what oligarchies act in violation of the interests of their own citizens. Did Saddam Hussein properly label the mixture of mustard gas and hydrogen cyanide he administered to his own peaceful civilian population during the Halabja and al-Anfal Campaigns?
In the case of the Indian incident cited above these drugs were approved by the U.S. F.D.A., a U.S. Federal Agency. How did the Agency act? If refused to release thousands of documents related to the case until a citizen used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover the F.D.A.’s unacceptable behavior.
What happened when Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (Mad Cow Disease) was discovered in the U.S.? The U.S. government passed a statute making it illegal for free market scientist and veterinarians to test the U.S. population of cattle and publish their findings. They tried to force their free market trade partners to import their infected cattle (such as Japan). Infected beef is still being found in U.S. exports (South Korea). Only the free market had remedied this. Exports of US beef declined from 1,300,000 metric tons in 2003, (before the first mad cow was detected in the US) to 322,000 metric tons in 2004. Please spoke with their wallets.
Blindly taking chemistry from a “2nd world” foreign country? No thanks. Just finished an all natural breakfast smoothie made in my Vita-Prep 3 food processor. Well, off to work I go.
If you’re breeding heifers. Obesity from birth, looks like.
Weird story. The “young” mother already has another child, yet no mention of a proud papi. Not that I could find, yet, looking at other reporting on it.
US equities have passed irrational valuation levels across the bulk of sectors and the market has become uncomfortably close to an unsustainable level that is ripe for a sizable and likely volatile correction. Where we are today is a direct result of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program instituted to date.
As a background, the current quantitative easing program is summarized as follows:
The Federal Reserve (a semi-private / quasi-governmental institution) creates credit (essentially printing money) to buy mortgage backed securities and treasuries.
A trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange reacts as markets fall around the world. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
A day after the FTSE 100 came within 90 points of its December 1999 all-time high, the index slumped 143 points yesterday to 6696, wiping £36bn off the value of Britain’s top companies.
The 2.1% fall was the index’s worst in one day since it lost just over 2.5% a year ago to the day, on fears that Greece could leave the eurozone. But after its recent strong surge this latest fall in the blue-chip index merely wipes out the gains made since last Friday.
Stock markets around the world tumbled from their recent highs as investors took fright at weak Chinese manufacturing data and signs that the US Federal Reserve might end its bond-buying programme sooner than expected.
Markets have been buoyed in recent months by the various measures taken by central banks to stimulate the global economy by flooding it with cash. Measures include printing money, buying up mortgage-backed bonds and keeping interest rates at historic lows. Much of the recent economic data indicated the policy was having the desired effect, while the long-running eurozone crisis seemed to have entered a period of relative calm.
But analysts have been warning that any signs the money taps were about to be turned off or that the global economy was not recovering as expected would be taken badly by the markets.
…
If quantitative easing is ever withdrawn and the global economy slips back into recession, it will be the IMF’s and BIS’s fault for “attacking it.” It’s either QE-to-infinity-and-beyond from here on out, or else the Fed will get the chance to shift the blame to its critics.
Never mind that the global financial economy teeters on the brink of outright collapse five years after the fall 2008 financial crisis led to the onset of quantitative easing American style!
P.S. If anyone can explain how deflation hurt Japanese households with savings in the bank, please do so.
BIS and IMF attacks on quantitative easing deeply misguided warn monetarists Monetarists across the world have warned that the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements are making an historic error by calling for a withdrawal of emergency stimulus before the global economy has fully recovered.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
3:59PM BST 19 May 2013
The BIS warned against “ever more monetary policy activism” to keep the global economy afloat. It called on the US, Britain, Japan, and the eurozone, to restore interest rates to normal levels “sooner rather than later.”
Photo: Getty Images
The two watchdogs launched broadsides against central bank largess last week. The BIS — the forum of central banks — was particularly blunt, seeming to imply that quantitative easing “does not work”.
Critics say this risks undermining the credibility of radical measures when more may yet be needed. They fear central banks could repeat the mistake made in 1937 when the Federal Reserve lost its nerve and tightened too soon, tipping America back into depression.
“The BIS and the IMF are deeply misguided and risk doing the world a grave disservice. The biggest threat right now is irrational fear of bubbles among central banks,” said Lars Christensen, a monetary theorist at Danske Bank.
“How can they criticize the Bank of Japan for pulling the country out of 15 years of deflation and the longest asset price collapse in modern history?”
…
Still collapsing after 24 years…perhaps the problem actually stems from central banking practices which lead to the development of ginormous, unsustainable asset price bubbles?
HONG KONG (MarketWatch) — Japanese stocks suffered deep losses Monday on the yen’s strength and further profit-taking after concerns about a rise in bond-market volatility helped stoke extreme swings late last week.
The Nikkei Stock Average (JP:NIK -3.22%) tumbled 3.2% to 14,142.65, falling significantly more than the 0.9% it picked up after Friday’s roller-coaster ride. The broader Topix (JP:NIK -3.22%) plummeted 3.4% to 1,154.07.
Still, both benchmarks had recovered from lows earlier in the day, when the Nikkei Average sank as much as 4%. …
the difference between macroeconomics and religion?
The difference between macro- and microeconomics might be clearer:
In, for example, a housing bubble, microeconomics would say buy a house and get in on the easy profits. Macroeconomics would point out that houses are too expensive for incomes, and the easy profits won’t last.
Don’t confuse macroeconomics with macro-economists.
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 07:29:55
Good point, Charlie.
Comment by alpha-sloth
2013-05-27 07:44:09
cite a single established macroeconomist
Who is an ‘established macroeconomist’? Pretty much every school of economic thought includes macroeconomics- classical, Keynesian, monetarist, Austerian School, etc. But there is no school of macroeconomics.
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 09:52:14
“Who is an ‘established macroeconomist’”
I’m mainly referring to those with MSM bully pulpits:
Ben Bernanke
Lawrence Summers
Janet Yellen
Bradford Delong
Paul Krugman
etc etc etc
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 09:53:50
P.S. Robert Shiller or Simon Johnson might be exceptions to my challenge, but the MSM tends to dismiss anyone with an exceptional viewpoint as a crank.
Comment by homie don't play houses
2013-05-27 10:18:02
I’m mainly referring to those with MSM bully pulpits:
Don’t forget
Hubbard
Nakiw
Lindsey
Comment by homie don't play houses
2013-05-27 10:31:39
Mankiw
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 15:28:47
“Macroeconomics would point out that houses are too expensive for incomes, and the easy profits won’t last.
Hubbard
Mankiw
Lindsay
Mayer
Leamer”
Which of these would openly call attention to the growing disconnect between home prices and incomes?
Maybe Edward Glaeser would have the guts to point out the obvious to the clueless MSM financial journalists…
Macroeconomics is the sum of the voluntary exchanges and the forced (thugernment) exchanges between people. Religion is the wishful or fearful fantasies of people.
I’m still missing the difference. Sorry to appear so dense.
(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill in Los Angeles
2013-05-27 09:55:24
in one the activities are real. in the other, imagined.
Comment by alpha-sloth
2013-05-27 11:02:04
OK, I’ll bite, thought I bet I’ll get some response about the Fed occupying this position:
Religion requires belief in a higher being with supernatural powers.
Macroeconomics requires the belief that looking at the economy as a whole is important to understanding it.
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 12:28:31
“Religion requires belief in a higher being with supernatural powers.”
BOOKS OF THE TIMES
By Christopher Lehmann-Haupt
Published: January 21, 1988
SECRETS OF THE TEMPLE: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country. By William Greider. 798 pages. Simon & Schuster. $24.95.
THE prospect of reading an 800-page book on the Federal Reserve System may very well not appeal to you particularly. That is exactly why you should keep on reading this review and then go out and get yourself a copy of William Greider’s ”Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country.”
…
If central banks raise interest rates, the housing, government bond and stock markets will correct themselves, leading to a banking crisis
Sir, Your leading article “Investor Exuberance” (May 24) is correct to suggest that asset prices are being sustained by artificially low interest rates. However, is there really an “exit plan” by the central bank out of the markets to raise interest rates and stop quantitative easing (QE)?
…
Perhaps worries about the Fed’s quantitative-easing exit, which have triggered sharp losses for Japan stocks and broke a four-week winning streak for Wall Street, aren’t exactly being overplayed.
We’re expecting too much of the Federal Reserve, and Bank of Japan, and I’m growing increasingly concerned that we’re not going to find an easy and smooth exit out of QE in the U.S. or for that matter in Japan.
That was Charles Dallara, the former managing director of the Institute of International Finance, a major lobby group for financial institutions, speaking to CNBC on Monday. Dallara was lead negotiator for private bondholders in talks to restructure Greek debt last year during the height of the European debt crisis.
Dallara, now chairman of the Americas at investment management company Partners Group, says he was a firm supporter of quantitative easing in 2009, 2010 and 2011, but now says the question must be asked as to whether that easy money has gone on too long and if the seeds are being sown for a “sharp correction not just in bond markets, but in stock markets.
We’re running out of room for the Fed to be a dominant part of the solution of our recovery…in many ways it’s been the only game in town as the U.S. has struggled to get a handle on our fiscal deficit…frankly, I think we have a growing risk of a severe correction in the bond and stock markets.
I sure wish FPSS were around to weigh in on a thought that just occurred to me.
Do you guys remember how Jamie Dimon caught a bit of heat last year and beyond over that London Whale position that JPM couldn’t unwind without incurring massive losses?
I believe QE3 poses a similar problem for the Fed: It felt great to get in, but once in, there is no painless exit. The main difference appears to be that in the case of the Fed, we are talking about trillions, not billions.
I believe QE3 poses a similar problem for the Fed: It felt great to get in, but once in, there is no painless exit.
FTFY.
The main difference appears to be that in the case of the Fed, we are talking about trillions, not billions.
Unwinding will NOT be a slow process; it will be a verbal process only, used when necessary to caution the markets.
The main difference is that JPM actually needed to unwind. There were facing significant, and growing losses, and those losses required them to put up REAL additional collateral.
Contrast this with the Fed: they do not need to unwind ever; they do not even need to publicly admit their losses; they do not have to put up any, much less more collateral; they can print additional money at will to cover any and all losses; they will never be forced to unwind, but could hold all acquired assets to maturity, or even longer by rolling them over.
See the difference?
(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 09:47:24
Unwinding will NOT be a slow processhappen.
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 09:49:00
“…it will be a verbal process only, used when necessary to caution the markets.”
I think of this as a means of shaking down speculators who seem to be getting overly irrationally exuberant.
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2013-05-27 09:58:17
Unwinding will NOT be a slow process happen.
Preeeee-cisely!
Comment by Al Jazeera
2013-05-27 10:10:08
If interest rates go up at a sufficient rate over a sufficiently short period of time than the U.S. Federal Reserve will have a negative net worth – it will technically be *insolvent* save some intervening remedy. The Fed “prints”” base” money only. (It does not print “hot” money). When the Fed prints base money it creates a liability on its balance sheet. The liability can only be created if it buys assets (of equal value) with the base money from a primary dealer (a bank) with the newly created money. The value of the assets purchased and the dollar liability created must be equal at the time of exchange. So there is no way for the Fed to print its way out of insolvency. Generally in situations such as this such as this the IMF would step in and bail-out the central bank. In this case the IMF is too small to bail out the Fed. The results will therefore be interesting to observe.
Maybe the U.S. should learn what civilized people learned over a millennium ago – thou shalt not use a debt based monetary system.
Exactly the analogy that ran through my mind when I typed that!
(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 15:37:19
And btw, the Fed researches this kind of predicament. They talk about “rules” and “discretion,” and the “commitment costs” involved with following the rules and the “weasel costs” associated with violating the rules.
Given the recent decision to shred the rule book and burn it, there are plenty of weasel costs to be paid down the road.
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 21:02:01
‘They talk about “rules” and “discretion,” and the “commitment costs” involved with following the rules and the “weasel costs” associated with violating the rules.’
Sounds a hell of a lot like marriage. And goes far to explain why I avoid exercising a level of discretion which could lead to weasel costs (e.g. family law attorney fees).
Last night I dreamed my timeshare was a deluxe condo and in the dream I did not fully realize I only had one week (oops) and was then slowly realizing the week was almost up. Must have been really into the HBB yesterday.
It will not end for a long time. If it does end we fall back into recession and asset prices crumble. When they want that to happen it will just like last time.
“After organizing FIGHT (an acronym for Freedom, Independence [subsequently Integration], God, Honor, Today) in Rochester, New York,[12] Alinsky once threatened to stage a “fart in” to disrupt the sensibilities of the city’s establishment at a Rochester Philharmonic concert.”
Bassoon
The world’s coolest instrument. Sounds like a dying duck fart, unless you know how to play. Which I do, so boo-yah. Also, as I’ve been told many many many many times, it looks like a bong. OK, I get it, move on with your life already.
Random Guy: Hehe… did you know your instrument looks like a bong?
Me: yes, the past 5 people to walk past have said that. But that still doesn’t mean you can put drugs in it, you disrespectful bassoon killer.
…
FRANKFURT — A top official of the Federal Reserve on Tuesday urged the European Central Bank to take more aggressive action to restart growth, warning that the euro area risked becoming mired in the same kind of economic stagnation that has plagued Japan for two decades, with far-reaching implications for the global economy.
James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and a voting member of the Fed’s policy-setting open markets committee, said Europe’s central bank should consider quantitative easing similar to that undertaken by the Fed — large bond purchases meant to drive down market interest rates.
The public comments were highly unusual. While central bankers from different countries frequently confer in private and offer advice and criticism to their peers behind closed doors, it is rare for any official to go public with even the mildest criticism of another central bank.
But with official interest rates in almost every advanced economy already close to zero, Mr. Bullard said, central bankers must reach for stronger tools to avoid getting trapped in economic doldrums.
“The lesson of Japan is that once you get stuck, it’s very hard to get out,” Mr. Bullard told an audience at Goethe University in Frankfurt. “One way to get stuck would be not to take aggressive action.”
Mr. Bullard sent a message to Wall Street not to expect the Fed to begin rolling back its own quantitative easing program soon, saying that there was no sign of inflation risk, and that even if there were, the central bank could deal with it.
“We just haven’t seen it so far,” Mr. Bullard said of inflation. And when it starts to appear, he added, “we know how to fight that problem — we can raise rates.”
…
ft dot com
May 26, 2013 6:55 pm
Europe’s future looks more Japanese than German
By Wolfgang Münchau The process to resolve the crisis will take many years to complete
Solving the eurozone crisis is a piece of a cake. I was reminded of that last week when I heard an economist cutting through all the complexity with a classic what-goes-up-must-come-down-type argument.
Germany improved its relative competitiveness against the eurozone during the first decade of the 21st century through wage moderation. But now German wages are rising at a slightly faster speed than those in Spain and Italy. Depending on your favourite metric for competitiveness and your own personal estimate of the required scale of adjustment, you can do the maths on how long it will take to complete the reversal.
Austerity drives this adjustment. It has turned current account deficits into current account surpluses by depressing imports. As countries deflate, exports become more competitive and, proponents of this view hope, growth will begin to rise slowly – exactly what happened in Germany in the 2000s.
The latter expectation, however, is wrong because it underestimates two factors. The first is the self-defeating impact of austerity on growth when interest rates are close to zero, as discussed many times on these pages.
The second factor is the presence of an unresolved banking crisis and an associate credit crunch, which will further depress nominal growth. In an environment of low nominal growth, high debt will not inflate away. The European Central Bank will not accept higher inflation. And Germany will not accept eurozone bonds, not even after its general election in September.
Policy makers are clinging to the hope that banking union will resolve everything. But can this new regime, once it is in place next year, do the job? Can it force a large-scale restructuring of the sector, close down unprofitable institutions, merge others or force partial nationalisations? Of course not.
…
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Harvard academics Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have accused fellow economist Paul Krugman of Princeton of ‘uncivil behavior’ in his criticisms of their work related to the debate over debt and austerity.
Reinhart and Rogoff are known for scholarly work that sought to highlight the negative effects of too much debt. Krugman, who is also a columnist for the New York Times, has been critical of their positions which are seen as endorsing controversial pro-austerity policies.
But Reinhart and Rogoff argue that some Krugman’s counterarguments have been unfair.
“We admire your past scholarly work, which influences us to this day,” a Saturday letter posted on Reinhart’s website said. “So it has been with deep disappointment that we have experienced your spectacularly uncivil behavior the past few weeks.”
The Harvard economists also wrote, “Your characterization of our work and of our policy impact is selective and shallow. It is deeply misleading about where we stand on the issues.”
Krugman responded in a New York Times blog post on Sunday, saying Reinhart and Rogoff have not offered a clear position on the impact of debt on economic growth.
Krugman argued that there is “an enormous difference between the statement “countries with debt over 90% of GDP [gross domestic product] tend to have slower growth than countries with debt below 90% of GDP” and the statement “growth drops off sharply when debt exceeds 90% of GDP”. The former statement is true; the latter isn’t.”
Neither. Either the central bank has to expand its balance sheet or the taxpayer has to make larger interest payments for the same level of service, both undesirable alternatives.
Is the central bank in the business of making money or helping people?
(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 07:28:26
It depends. Are you talking about their propaganda campaign or their actions?
Comment by azdude
2013-05-27 07:39:36
oh i’m just trying to figure out who is winning here. I think the whole motto is that they are there to help the economy and you.
Folks seem to forget that this is a private bank. Banks are in the business of making money.
Right now they are enabling borrowing fairly cheap.
What happens if interest rates rise dramatically down the road?
The govt is locked in to low rates for awhile but what happens when those treasuries mature and you dont have the money to pay back?
Well if you dont have money you have to issue new debt. But lets say rates are a lot higher when you need to borrow down the road. It will cost a lot more to service all that debt as it matures.
Comment by tj
2013-05-27 08:52:44
What happens if interest rates rise dramatically down the road?
not much other than people stop buying big ticket items they can’t afford. then prices have to come down. oh the horror..
But lets say rates are a lot higher when you need to borrow down the road. It will cost a lot more to service all that debt as it matures.
then you have to live within your means.
what happens if interest rates goes to infinity? no one borrows, but life goes on. people will still go to work and buy things. people will save money because whatever the savings rates were, they would be very high. life would continue, and i think get better. but everyone else will tell it’s the end of the world.
now how about fiscal policy? what if tax rates went to 100% (doesn’t have to be that high, can be something substantially less)? people would stop working. the economy would die.
now tell me which is more important, monetary or fiscal policy?
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 09:42:31
“…now how about fiscal policy? what if tax rates went to 100% (doesn’t have to be that high, can be something substantially less)? people would stop working. the economy would die.”
It sounds like we better keep tax rates ultra-low and let the Fed’s printing press do the work of stealth taxation.
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 09:44:51
“oh i’m just trying to figure out who is winning here.”
LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — U.S. crude-oil futures declined Monday, stretching last week’s losses which came in part on worries about slowing growth in China.
Crude for July delivery fell 61 cents, or 0.7%, to $93.54 a barrel in electronic trade.
Floor trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange was slated to resume Tuesday, following Monday’s U.S. Memorial Day holiday.
Oil futures in Nymex action on Friday recorded their fourth consecutive loss.
…
“Demand for oil has fallen off a cliff in the US. we are back to the 90’s in regards to demand.”
How do you figure?
Production of oil is nowhere near 90s level. It’s about 40% higher. Production levels are determined by demand. Oil isn’t pumped if there’s no buyer for it. Crude oil production due to increased demand has been steadily increasing over the past 20 years.
You respond with data about worldwide demand, and try to use that to refute a statement about demand in the US?
You’re not making any sense, Smithers…
(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 10:08:03
Maybe he doesn’t realize that oil is an internationally traded commodity?
May 27, 2013, 12:12 p.m. EDT Oil down with China growth expectations OPEC likely to hold output at current 30 million barrels a day
By Kate Gibson and Carla Mozee, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Oil declined on Monday for a fifth day after China indicated it would accept a reduced pace of economic growth and before an OPEC gathering later in the week.
Crude for July delivery CLN3 -0.67% fell 57 cents, or 0.6%, to $93.61 a barrel in electronic trade. Monday’s electronic transactions will be booked with Tuesday’s trades for settlement.
Floor trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange was slated to resume Tuesday, following Monday’s U.S. Memorial Day holiday.
…
Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-05-27 17:47:49
“You’re not making any sense, Smithers…”
EddieTard Slithers has a propensity to leave out important distinctions.
You’re an untrusthworthy hack EddieTard Slithers.
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 19:24:46
So long as you realize he is a troll and a propaganda hack, it’s easy to compartmentalize his posts.
Organizers say marchers in more than 400 cities across 52 countries took part in protests against seed giant Monsanto (MON -0.15%) on Saturday, the Associated Press reported. March Against Monsanto protesters say they wanted to call attention to the dangers posed by genetically modified food and the food giants that produce it, the AP said.
When Wall Street predicts something will happen in Washington, it is often wise to bet on the opposite. Multiple polls show Janet Yellen, vice-chair of the US Federal Reserve, as the strong favourite to be named Ben Bernanke’s replacement as chair – an announcement that is likely by September.
Such certainty is puzzling: there is no evidence President Barack Obama sees Ms Yellen as a shoo-in. Nor does his likely shortlist – which includes two former Treasury secretaries, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner; and a former vice-chairman of the Fed, Donald Kohn – suggest Ms Yellen as the inescapable choice. Each is an impressive name, as are possible outsiders such as Stanley Fischer, governor of the Bank of Israel (who holds dual nationality). Mr Obama has a deep bench from which to choose.
It is my bet he will settle on Mr Summers. The case for Ms Yellen is strong. Her economic credentials are a match for anyone’s, including Mr Summers. Having been head of the San Francisco Fed, her central bank experience is also deep. Yet Ms Yellen has a reputation as dove at a time when the cycle may be close to turning. By next January, when Mr Bernanke’s successor takes over, the long phase of monetary easing is likely to be tapering off. Last week, Mr Bernanke assured Congress that the monthly $85bn of asset purchases in the third round of quantitative easing would continue as long as there was any question about the US recovery. Such doubt grows a little weaker with each Fed meeting. The US economy is picking up speed.
…
It’s lucky that the Fed chairman position is unelected.
Don’t Let Larry Summers Off the Hook Yet
Why the Harvard president’s tactless social science was a bad idea.
By Meghan O’Rourke|Posted Friday, Jan. 28, 2005, at 6:06 PM
In the weeks since debate erupted over Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ suggestion that “innate differences” between men and women help explain the lack of top-level female professionals in science and engineering, a remarkably consistent narrative has emerged in the mainstream media: Summers is a martyr to political correctness. He’s the inquisitive freethinker asking the hard questions that need to be asked, while his small-minded critics are thwarting serious debate. These women, a Washington Post columnist argued, epitomize the “unwillingness of the modern academy to tolerate … freewheeling inquiry.”
…
How could something not go wrong? Then consider the other side effects of low rates; stock bubbles, govt. bonds markets with trillion$ earning less than inflation. Junk bond markets pouring billions into corporations, many of whom should have gone out of business years ago. With all that, many of the largest countries are either in recession or on the brink. Everywhere there’s debt, debt, debt. I don’t think the central banks will raise rates. IMO, circumstances are going to do that for them.
The big question is what will those people that are employed in these companies, govt do?
IMHO, we have reached the maximum in production of everything that the first world can buy (TVs, cars, furniture etc.) There is only the replacement market in the developed countries.
The south and east Asian and African markets are too poor to afford these products. The production of goods are saturated. Hence the need to produce junk stuff and nick-knacks that people here don’t mind paying for 10 times than spend the same amount once to buy a quality item.
“IMHO, we have reached the maximum in production of everything that the first world can buy (TVs, cars, furniture etc.) There is only the replacement market in the developed countries. ”
Everything that can be invented has been invented.
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899
That statement by Duell was patently not true in 1899. Little did he know that!
In a sense he is right about the direction - the law of diminishing returns. If you apply this to engineering: the gains that are coming are due to innovations in materials. Same thing with electronics (as a subset of engineering) - materials and application.
Medicine is making strides in finding new techniques. But at the same time new “inventions” are being made in treatments!
Holy-moly, that graph is one of the most compelling and damning that I have seen. It makes crystal-clear what has been happening in our hollowed-out shell of an economy over the past 40yrs.
No worries—we’ll just borrow it from future taxpayers, in the hope that they won’t be as tapped out 100yrs or so into the future. But none of us will be alive, so who cares, right?
The location of the Y-axis does not obviate the key take-home of the graph, which is that after a long period of relative stability, U.S. household labor market income as a share of GDP has undergone a protracted downtrend from a level over 53% in 1968 to under 44% now.
3. Be aware that Oxide, our blog Debt Donkey, flails away at anything that threatens to poke a hole in the bubble she lives in.
(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-05-27 19:23:31
Whatever.
No matter how the Y-axis is scaled, the trend displayed in the graph shows an irreversible slide in the household income share of U.S. GDP, which represents the middle class getting thrown under the bus by decades of Greenspan and Bernanke monetary policy.
Comment by MightyMike
2013-05-27 21:19:50
Clearly middle class workers have been getting steadily more lazy over the past 4½ decades.
This would make houses cheap. I personally could have done without the three 6s in this bill. Nonetheless, if FEMA can’t keep enough bottled water stocked for the aftermath of a hurricanne, how are they going to handle the coordination of mass fatalities from a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster?
PS
I don’t think they are going to be able to hold it down to just the teabillies.
H.R. 6566 (112th): Mass Fatality Planning and Religious Considerations Act
112th Congress, 2011–2013. Text as of Sep 28, 2012 (Introduced).
HR 6566 IH
112th CONGRESS
2d Session
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 28, 2012
Ms. RICHARDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide guidance and coordination for mass fatality planning, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Mass Fatality Planning and Religious Considerations Act’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Emergency preparedness often plans for how to prepare and provide for survivors of a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster, but fails to plan for how to prepare for and respond to mass fatalities that result from such an incident.
(2) Funeral homes, cemeteries, and mortuaries could be overwhelmed should mass fatalities arise from a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster.
(3) Different religions have different customs surrounding death; for example, the Jewish and Muslim religions call for burial of the deceased not later than 48 hours after death.
SEC. 3. PREPAREDNESS FOR MASS FATALITIES RESULTING FROM A NATURAL DISASTER, ACT OF TERRORISM, OR OTHER MAN-MADE DISASTER.
Section 504 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 314) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘(c) Preparedness for Mass Fatalities- In carrying out this section, the Administrator shall provide guidance to and coordinate with appropriate individuals, including representatives from different communities, private sector businesses, non-profit organizations, and religious organizations, to prepare for and respond to a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster that results in mass fatalities.’.
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — The bears are warning: A herd mentality on Wall Street is driving stocks to unsustainable levels.
As an extended rally prompts some strategists to raise their price targets for the year, the pessimistic ones are arguing that those prices are being supported more by performance-chasing investors than by any real improvement in fundamentals.
“My experience is when managers are overly focused on performance on a near-term basis, and worried they’re missing out, it means they’re buying stocks for the wrong reasons,” said Brian Belski, chief investment strategist at BMO Capital Markets.
…
Scotland: Every Child to Have “State Guardian” From Birth
Dystopian plan would see government social worker assigned to spy on every family
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 27, 2013
Every child in Scotland is to be assigned a “state minder” from birth under draconian new proposals that would enable the government to spy on families under the justification of preventing “child abuse”.
Writing in the Scotsman of how he penned a dystopian novel based around this very scenario of every child being assigned a government mentor, sociology and criminology lecturer at the University of Abertay Dundee Stuart Walton writes, “Unfortunately, this dystopian future has arrived a little faster than I imagined, as last week the Scottish Government’s plan to give every child a state guardian from birth was launched.”
“This state-appointed overseer will be a specific, named individual, and every child will have one, from birth. The responsibility for creating this named guardian will fall on the heads of the health boards for the first five years of a child’s life, before being transferred to councils.”
The program is a statutory initiative built into the Children and Young People Bill. Children’s minister Aileen Campbell justified the proposal by asserting it would “make sure there is someone having an overview of what is happening to that child, to make sure that early indicators of anything that would pose a threat or risk to that child are flagged up”.
Walton speculates on what kind of behavior could eventually be deemed “child abuse,” including the contents of a child’s school lunch box or a re-definition of “bullying” to include a parent shouting at their kid.
Indeed, as we have previously documented, schools are now encouraging children to spy on their parents’ recycling habits in the name of protecting mother earth. Could the alleged eco-crime of failing to place a piece of cardboard in the correct trash can prompt the child to report his parents to the “state guardian” and spark an investigation?
In the aftermath of the Jimmy Savile scandal, concern about child abuse is rampant in the UK but it is a fear that has largely been generated by media scaremongering and not an actual marked increase in cases of child abuse.
Top judges like Alan Goldsack QC are also calling on the government to intervene to remove children from “criminal families” at birth. As part of what it calls “Family Intervention Projects,” the British government has also forced thousands of families to install surveillance cameras inside their own homes while subjecting them to home visits to ensure that children go to bed on time, attend school and eat proper meals.
The idea of having a government social worker assigned to spy on every family via the child is an abhorrent notion that would only be accepted in despotic hellholes like North Korea, Maoist China, or Stalinist Russia, yet it is calmly being proposed in current legislation.
The secret police of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu also recruited thousands of children aged 12-14 to spy on their school friends, parents and teachers, according to communist-era archives. At the height of the dictatorship, a staggering 15 per cent of the country’s informants were children. They were encouraged to report anyone who expressed a political opinion contrary to the status quo or those who merely made a joke of Ceausescu.
Is the Scottish government also taking cues from George Orwell’s 1984? In the dystopian classic, “children who turned in their own parents as traitors” are treated as heroes by the Party.
The notion of children being the collective property of the state is also creeping into American society. As we reported last month, college professor and MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry caused an outcry amongst conservatives when she remarked, “We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families,” as part of a promotional video for an MSNBC campaign entitled ‘Lean Forward’.
Sounds like a great way to reduce the welfare rolls, actually. Take your parental responsibilities seriously or lose your benefit. Next step is to limit who gets to reproduce on the public dime.
As for governments encouraging school children to spy and inform on their parents, may I refer you to Mommy Reagan’s “DARE” program?
‘Common Core’ Nationalizes and Dumbs Down Public School Curriculum
Ron Paul
Infowars.com
May 27, 2013
In addition to shredding civil liberties, launching a utopian global war for democracy, and going on a spending spree that would make LBJ blush, the so-called “conservative” Bush administration dramatically increased federal control over education via the “No Child Left Behind” act. During my time in Congress I heard nothing but complaints about this law from teachers, administrators, and, most importantly, students and parents. Most of the complaints concerned No Child Left Behind’s testing requirements, which encouraged educators to “teach to the test.”
Sadly, but not surprisingly, instead of improving education by repealing No Child Left Behind’s testing and other mandates, the Obama administration is increasing national control over schools via the “Common Core” initiative. Common Core is a new curriculum developed by a panel of so-called education experts. The administration is trying to turn Common Core into a national curriculum by offering states increased federal education funding if they impose Common Core’s curriculum on their public schools. This is yet another example of the government using money stolen from the people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.
Critics of Common Core say it “dumbs down” education by replacing traditional English literature with “informational texts”. So students will read such inspiring materials as studies by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the EPA’s “Recommended Levels of Insulation,” and “Invasive Plant Inventory” by California’s Invasive Plant Council. It is doubtful that reading federal reports will teach students the habits of critical thinking and skepticism of government that the Founders considered essential to maintaining a free republic.
Like Obamacare, Common Core (now dubbed “ObamaCore” by some) has sparked a backlash in the states, leading some to propose legislation forbidding state participation in the scheme. I hope these efforts lead to states not just opting out of Common Core, but out of No Child Left Behind and all other federal education programs as well.
Parents can also effectively “opt out” of programs like Common Core by seeking alternatives to government education. It is no coincidence that, as federal control over education increases, the quality of public education has declined and more parents have chosen to homeschool.
To support these parents, I have established my own homeschool curriculum. Unlike Common Core, we do not dumb down any of our offerings. Instead, the goal is to provide students with a rigorous education in history, math, English, foreign languages, and other core subjects necessary to a well-rounded education. Unlike the top-down model of nationalized education, the homeschool curriculum is deigned to encourage maximum input from parents and students. While the curriculum will reflect my belief, and interest, in Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of the struggle against state power, the curriculum is being carefully designed to not show bias toward any one religion. I hope all parents of any faith—or no religious belief at all—will feel comfortable using the curriculum.
I believe it is important for those of us concerned with education and liberty to fight our battles locally. We must oppose further encroachment on the autonomy of local public schools and work to roll-back existing interference, while encouraging and supporting the growth of homeschooling and other alternative education movements. The key to restoring quality education is to replace the bureaucratic control of education with a free-market in education. Parents should have the freedom to select the type of education that best suits their child’s unique needs.
Former Congressman Paul’s article first appeared at the-free-foundation.org, the temporary home for his weekly column until his personal web page is up and running.
54 Responses to “‘Common Core’ Nationalizes and Dumbs Down Public School Curriculum”
World Bank Insider Blows Whistle on Corruption, Federal Reserve
by Alex Newman
The New American
May 25, 2013
A former insider at the World Bank, ex-Senior Counsel Karen Hudes, says the global financial system is dominated by a small group of corrupt, power-hungry figures centered around the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve. The network has seized control of the media to cover up its crimes, too, she explained. In an interview with The New American, Hudes said that when she tried to blow the whistle on multiple problems at the World Bank, she was fired for her efforts. Now, along with a network of fellow whistleblowers, Hudes is determined to expose and end the corruption. And she is confident of success.
Citing an explosive 2011 Swiss study published in the PLOS ONE journal on the “network of global corporate control,” Hudes pointed out that a small group of entities – mostly financial institutions and especially central banks – exert a massive amount of influence over the international economy from behind the scenes. “What is really going on is that the world’s resources are being dominated by this group,” she explained, adding that the “corrupt power grabbers” have managed to dominate the media as well. “They’re being allowed to do it.”
According to the peer-reviewed paper, which presented the first global investigation of ownership architecture in the international economy, transnational corporations form a “giant bow-tie structure.” A large portion of control, meanwhile, “flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions.” The researchers described the core as an “economic ‘super-entity’” that raises important issues for policymakers and researchers. Of course, the implications are enormous for citizens as well.
Hudes, an attorney who spent some two decades working in the World Bank’s legal department, has observed the machinations of the network up close. “I realized we were now dealing with something known as state capture, which is where the institutions of government are co-opted by the group that’s corrupt,” she told The New American in a phone interview. “The pillars of the U.S. government – some of them – are dysfunctional because of state capture; this is a big story, this is a big cover up.”
At the heart of the network, Hudes said, are 147 financial institutions and central banks – especially the Federal Reserve, which was created by Congress but is owned by essentially a cartel of private banks. “This is a story about how the international financial system was secretly gamed, mostly by central banks – they’re the ones we are talking about,” she explained. “The central bankers have been gaming the system. I would say that this is a power grab.”
The Fed in particular is at the very center of the network and the coverup, Hudes continued, citing a policy and oversight body that includes top government and Fed officials. Central bankers have also been manipulating gold prices, she added, echoing widespread concerns that The New American has documented extensively. Indeed, even the inaccurate World Bank financial statements that Hudes has been trying to expose are linked to the U.S. central bank, she said.
“The group that we’re talking about from the Zurich study – that’s the Federal Reserve; it has some other pieces to it, but that’s the Federal Reserve,” Hudes explained. “So the Federal Reserve secretly dominated the world economy using secret, interlocking corporate directorates, and terrorizing anybody who managed to figure out that they were having any kind of role, and putting people in very important positions so that they could get a free pass.”
The shadowy but immensely powerful Bank for International Settlements serves as “the club of these private central bankers,” Hudes continued. “Now, are people going to want interest on their country’s debts to continue to be paid to that group when they find out the secret tricks that that group has been doing? Don’t forget how they’ve enriched themselves extraordinarily and how they’ve taken taxpayer money for the bailout.”
As far as intervening in the gold price, Hudes said it was an effort by the powerful network and its central banks to “hold onto its paper currency” – a suspicion shared by many analysts and even senior government officials. The World Bank whistleblower also said that contrary to official claims, she did not believe there was any gold being held in Fort Knox. Even congressmen and foreign governments have tried to find out if the precious metals were still there, but they met with little success. Hudes, however, believes the scam will eventually come undone.
“This is like crooks trying to figure out where they can go hide. It’s a mafia,” she said. “These culprits that have grabbed all this economic power have succeeded in infiltrating both sides of the issue, so you will find people who are supposedly trying to fight corruption who are just there to spread disinformation and as a placeholder to trip up anybody who manages to get their act together.… Those thugs think that if they can keep the world ignorant, they can bleed it longer.”
World Bank Insider Blows Whistle on Corruption, Federal Reserve
by Alex Newman
The New American
May 25, 2013
Of course, the major corruption at the highest levels of government and business is not a new phenomenon. Georgetown University historian and Professor Carroll Quigley, who served as President Bill Clinton’s mentor, for example, wrote about the scheme in his 1966 book Tragedy And Hope: A History Of The World In Our Time. The heavyweight academic, who was allowed to review documents belonging to the top echelons of the global establishment, even explained how the corrupt system would work — remarkably similar to what Hudes describes.
“The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole,” wrote Prof. Quigley, who agreed with the goals but not the secrecy. “This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”
But it is not going to happen, Hudes said — at least not if she has something do to with it. While the media are dominated by the “power grabber” network, Hudes has been working with foreign governments, reporters, U.S. officials, state governments, and a broad coalition of fellow whistleblowers to blow the entire scam wide open. There has been quite a bit of interest, too, particularly among foreign governments and state officials in the United States.
Citing the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers in creating a federal system of government with multiple layers of checks and balances, Hudes said she was confident that the network would eventually be exposed and subjected to the rule of law, stopping the secret corruption. If and when that happens — even if it may be disorderly — Hudes says precious metals will once again play a role in imposing discipline on the monetary system. The rule of law would also be restored, she said, and the public will demand a proper press to stay informed.
“We’re going to have a cleaned-up financial system, that’s where it is going, but in the meantime, people who didn’t know how the system was gamed are going to find out,” she said. “We’re going to have a different kind of international financial system…. It’ll be a new kind of world where people know what’s going on — no more backroom deals; that’s not going to keep happening. We’re going to have a different kind of media if people don’t want to be dominated and controlled, which I don’t think they do.”
While Hudes sounded upbeat, she recognizes that the world is facing serious danger right now — there are even plans in place to impose martial law in the United States, she said. The next steps will be critical for humanity. As such, Hudes argues, it is crucial that the people of the world find out about the lawlessness, corruption, and thievery that are going on at the highest levels — and put a stop to it once and for all. The consequences of inaction would be disastrous.
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. He can be reached atanewman@thenewamerican.com.
Moving new money into the 80/20 stocks to bonds ratio:
Okay for Whac especially to note, I got into Vanguard’s investor shares of the REIT index fund. $3,000 to get in VGSIX. Figuring in a little over 30 months they will put me in the admiral version of that fund, based on my future monthly investments.
Looking at their midcap, VMGRX. I weighed that compared to VHCOX and vmgix. Might get into that one this Fall. VHCOX is a good performer, but not truly a mid-cap.
Scaled back on VSGAX, the small company stock index fund which has been my best performer the last several years.
My advisors say I should get out of the high yield corporate bond fund, and as soon as I’m permitted by Vanguard, I will stop my contributions to that one. It’s yielding about $71 per month income, which is fine by me.
Did they have any rational to back that one up, or is that just their ‘expert advice’?
Because it seems to me that if the economy improves, high yield bonds will command relatively lower yields, reflecting lower default risk relative to super safe stuff (Treasurys, GSE debt, etc). Thus one might guess that if Treasury bond yields increased in response to economic recovery, narrowing of the spread of high yield corporate debt over Treasurys might provide a buffer.
And if the economy doesn’t improve, then the default risk associated with a bad economy is already priced into the high yields you already are receiving.
It’s their “Expert advice” - actually that VWESX has been a good fund for me. And yes things might already be priced into high yield bonds. Yes if interest rates go up the NAV will go down and yields of shares of future purchases of new bonds will go up. I have no complaints of keeping it. They seem to want to ditch all corporate bonds for some reason.
“They seem to want to ditch all corporate bonds for some reason.”
My advice: If you have some (sufficiently diversified) high-yield corporate bonds and some higher-rated low-yield corporates, ditch the latter, as they are sure to go down in value when interest rates rise.
As already noted above, when rates start to rise in response to economic recovery, the narrowing of spreads due to declining risk of lower-rated bond default will buffer high-yield bonds against the predictable 20-year crash in Treasurys and MBS.
Name:Ben Jones Location:Northern Arizona, United States To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Media fluffing the NAR:
Would-be homebuyers are sweetening offers with written letters to sellers
“Some buyers are solving housing woes with prose.
They’re not writing poems or romantic novels — just short notes to sellers, telling them how happy they’d be to buy their homes.
The simple gesture is paying off in today’s market, where inventory is tight and bidding wars are typical.”
http://www.denverpost.com/smart/ci_23318311/homebuyers-sweetening-offer-writing-letters-sellers
You might like this weather goon
Strange Weather so far this summer. Sometimes we have to wear a jacket while going to the state fair which starts August 20 and ends Labor day. The leaves will start to turn color in mid August. Basically we have 2.5 months of summer left this year. Not very happy
3 feet of snow blankets Adirondacks’ Whiteface Mountain after Memorial Day weekend storm
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/05/3_feet_of_snow_blankets_adiron.html#incart_m-rpt-2
For those of you who have the time and inclination, a very interesting story on the India pharma company Ranbaxy and their fake generics. Ah, the joys of globalism! And catch a load of those two grinning, oily f*cks who head the firm. Not to mention, where was the FDA in all of this? OH, wait, maybe the persons in charge in Washington are posting away on this blog (and others) instead of doing their job?
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/15/ranbaxy-fraud-lipitor/
Ah, the joys of globalism!
Yes, globalism let’s us see how well deregulation and an ‘unfettered’ free market would work. Enjoy your fake medicine!
let’s us see how well deregulation and an ‘unfettered’ free market would work
Things being properly labeled as to their contents is a key part of free markets; market forces only work if people know what they are bidding upon.
Things being properly labeled as to their contents is a key part of free markets;
But such a thing is only possible with effective regulation, and some seem to think that any regulation destroys the free market.
But such a thing is only possible with effective regulation, and
Anyone with any sense believes in _some_ amount of effective regulation; properly labeling things is a fine example of sensible regulation, as it lets the purchasers make good decisions, and thus express what they value to the market, allowing it to adapt to their expressed needs.
some seem to think that any regulation destroys the free market.
Some amount of regulation (such as proper labeling in the interest of fraud avoidance) is strictly required to have a healthy free market.
Personally, I don’t think too much regulation is required, though, short of telling markets accurately what you are selling.
Personally, I don’t think too much regulation is required, though, short of telling markets accurately what you are selling.
How about worker and environmental safety?
Ronald Coase disagrees with all of you. Regulation in the long run just makes free markets inefficient and hurts everyone.
But what does he know? He just on a Nobel Economics prize.
He just on a Nobel Economics prize.
If you put much stock in that, you must agree with everything that Krugman says as well. And Obama, for that matter.
How about worker and environmental safety?
Great point, alpha. And I do care about both of those.
Unfortunately, our free markets ALREADY allow us to express our collective degree of concern about both of those issues—and the indisputable answer is that Americans don’t care at all. We continue to buy our cr@p from the lowest-cost producers, where both of those are clearly ignored.
Or maybe we merely don’t care as long as the maimed workers and polluted locales are far from our sight.
Unfortunately, our free markets ALREADY allow us to express our collective degree of concern about both of those issues
actually no, the free markets have already been circumvented. worker’s comp is one example. it sheltered employers from lawsuits by giving the best possible care to injured workers. it seems like a fair compromise at first. but if employers had to worry about huge lawsuits, they’d take safety into much more consideration that they do now.
free markets are being strangled in this country. everywhere they are being allowed less and less to work. and we all suffer for it.
“Ronald Coase disagrees with all of you. Regulation in the long run just makes free markets inefficient and hurts everyone.”
Please cite a reference to where he said this, or we will know you are just dumping more BS on our plates.
actually no, the free markets have already been circumvented.
I think you missed my point: people already choose less environmental protection, and fewer worker protections, with every single dollar that they choose to send… to CHINA.
I call BS on your other point, though: Workman’s Comp does _not_ prevent people from suing for harm caused by an unsafe work environment.
I think you missed my point: people already choose less environmental protection, and fewer worker protections, with every single dollar that they choose to send… to CHINA.
i didn’t miss your point. your point isn’t valid. people are choosing a product, not a regulation or lack of one.
Workman’s Comp does _not_ prevent people from suing for harm caused by an unsafe work environment.
not in all cases, but most cases. if an employer gets people injured he pays a little higher premium, but rarely gets sued.
i didn’t miss your point. your point isn’t valid. people are choosing a product, not a regulation or lack of one.
And in many cases we have no choice from where our consumer goods come from, other than maybe selecting between China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, etc.
i didn’t miss your point. your point isn’t valid. people are choosing a product, not a regulation or lack of one.
I think the point is still valid; earlier on in the globalization process, it was sometimes possible to buy very similar products that were “Made in the USA”, vs cheaper products that were made elsewhere with no environmental or worker protections. The masses chose to buy the “Made in China” versions at Wal-mart, because they were significantly cheaper.
Things being properly labeled as to their contents is a key part of free markets; market forces only work if people know what they are bidding upon.
No it isn’t.
In a free market, a producer that presents the best value will gain market share. This value might include the type of labeling that you prefer.
Misrepresenting what you are selling or even poorly representing will exist in a free market. You are free to avoid poor value choices.
You are free to avoid poor value choices.
How do you do that?
You are free to avoid poor value choices.
Without knowing what you are buying, how can you possibly avoid poor-value choices?
Without knowing what you are buying, how can you possibly avoid poor-value choices?
although i’m not going to complain about such a small infringement on the free market, CharlieTango is right.
how can you avoid poor-value choices? don’t buy the product that doesn’t have the info on the label that you’d like to be there. if enough people do that, they’ll either have to put the info on the label or suffer profit losses. people will do anything for profit you know.. even work.
don’t buy the product that doesn’t have the info on the label that you’d like to be there.
And when the monopoly-provider doesn’t offer you the info that you want, how do you express your desire to have it there?
Free markets (and I am a huge believer in them) only allow you to express your opinions among the palette of options that are available for purchase in the market.
In other words, you cannot vote with your dollars for an option that is not available for purchase.
don’t buy the product that doesn’t have the info on the label that you’d like to be there.
What if they put the info on the label, but it’s not true?
And when the monopoly-provider doesn’t offer you the info that you want, how do you express your desire to have it there?
by refusing to buy their shoddy product.
Free markets (and I am a huge believer in them)
i believe you.
only allow you to express your opinions among the palette of options that are available for purchase in the market.
true, but that’s enough.
In other words, you cannot vote with your dollars for an option that is not available for purchase.
that’s not correct. if the product is of no use or causes harm, no one would buy it, and that’s not a sustainable business model.
In other words, you cannot vote with your dollars for an option that is not available for purchase.
then you sue their ass off for fraud and they learn an important lesson in their pocket book or maybe go out of business.
by refusing to buy their shoddy product.
So… let’s take some examples:
1) Would you refuse to buy gasoline from Standard Oil (who would have remained the only oil company in an unfettered free market) because you didn’t really need to drive your car to work so that you afford to feed your family?
2) Would you refuse to heat your house and keep your children warm, because the only practical way to do so would be to buy natural gas from your local utility company, and you do not approve of the way that they are purchasing that gas—like say, perhaps a small fraction of the gas that they buy is produced by fracking?
that’s not correct. if the product is of no use or causes harm, no one would buy it, and that’s not a sustainable business model.
It’s not just products that are of “no use” that are of concern.
My point is still valid: you can vote with your dollars only for options that are available for sale; you cannot express your preference for options that are not available to vote upon with your dollars.
then you sue their ass off for fraud and they learn an important lesson in their pocket book or maybe go out of business.
None of the cases I was talking about had anything to do with fraud.
i’m sorry for the copy-paste error.
i meant that answer to be for alpha..
What if they put the info on the label, but it’s not true?
then you sue their ass off for fraud and they learn an important lesson in their pocket book or maybe go out of business.
1) Would you refuse to buy gasoline from Standard Oil (who would have remained the only oil company in an unfettered free market) because you didn’t really need to drive your car to work so that you afford to feed your family?
no, it wouldn’t have been the only oil company in an unfettered free market.
2) Would you refuse to heat your house and keep your children warm, because the only practical way to do so would be to buy natural gas from your local utility company, and you do not approve of the way that they are purchasing that gas—like say, perhaps a small fraction of the gas that they buy is produced by fracking?
if it were a big enough issue for me, i’d find a different way to keep my children warm.
My point is still valid: you can vote with your dollars only for options that are available for sale; you cannot express your preference for options that are not available to vote upon with your dollars.
you don’t need other options. refusing to buy the product is enough, if enough people refuse.
no, it wouldn’t have been the only oil company in an unfettered free market.
???
Monopoly is quite natural in a free market unless you interfere to prevent it.
Monopoly is quite natural in a free market unless you interfere to prevent it.
+infinity.
With the amount of money that Standard Oil could and did spend to bankrupt their smaller competitors, their monopoly was _guaranteed_ to continue. They were famous for this type of anti-competitive behavior.
refusing to buy the product is enough, if enough people refuse.
And your point is completely specious—because in many cases there is not an effective option to avoid buying their product. There are real “needs” in life, and you seem to be trying to ignore that fact.
Monopoly is quite natural in a free market unless you interfere to prevent it.
a true monopoly can only happen when an outside authority protects it. such is the case with the us post office or carlos slims’s telemex.
att wasn’t a monopoly like most people think it was. anyone could have gone in competition with it. but no one did. why? because they provided their product at a price that no one wanted to try to compete against. but they were free to try if they wanted. if at&t’s prices were to high, someone would tried to garner a little of their market. they weren’t the bad guys as they were portrayed.
carl, if you don’t believe me, spend a few minutes and look up the true definition of a monopoly. simply, monopolies are impossible in a free market.
then you sue their ass off for fraud and they learn an important lesson in their pocket book or maybe go out of business.
How do I prove that the medicine they sold me was fake? Or that the hamburger they sold me was dog meat?
because in many cases there is not an effective option to avoid buying their product.
that’s only because of one of two reasons. either
1. some outside authority like a government is interfering with the market,
or
2. there are enough people satisfied with the product to overcome the negative aspects of those who aren’t.
How do I prove that the medicine they sold me was fake? Or that the hamburger they sold me was dog meat?
by having it independently test the way it’s mostly done. your questions are getting stupid, so i’m not going to answer them anymore.
by having it independently test the way it’s mostly done
So I just need to run to the lab after I go grocery shopping or purchase medicine, and have everything tested? Sounds very expensive and time-consuming.And how can I trust the lab?
Consuming is only a portion of a free market. You can influence the market by becoming a provider or an investor.
carl, if you don’t believe me, spend a few minutes and look up the true definition of a monopoly. simply, monopolies are impossible in a free market.
Link? I can look up monopoly all day but I suspect you’ll want to point to a different definition since you used the words “true definition”.
Anyway, you can quibble over specific definitions but we all know how the word is commonly used, including for the purposes of this discussion. I have a soft spot for libertarian philosophy but this sort of thing is why I’m not registered as an L. You can argue all day about what would happen under perfect circumstances but that does us no good. In reality, monopoly (as the term is commonly used) is almost guaranteed in an unregulated market.
Monopolies are impossible in a free market with ZERO (or near zero) costs of entry. Energy production isn’t that sort of market. Neither is agriculture.
Monopolies are impossible in a free market with ZERO (or near zero) costs of entry.
this is a myth like the broken window fallacy.
cost of entry isn’t relevant. what’s relevant is the profit potential.
if the profit potential is high enough, it will attract investor groups. the money will get raised.
cost of entry isn’t relevant. what’s relevant is the profit potential.
FAIL.
What investor in their right mind is going to put up significant entry-costs, if the fore-ordained outcome is that the monopoly will drop prices _temporarily_ to below your break-even point, forcing you out of business?
A zero cost-of-entry is thus required.
if the profit potential is high enough, it will attract investor groups. the money will get raised.
Sure, you will have no problem raising money from investors who like to lose money.
FAIL
melodramatic aren’t you?
What investor in their right mind is going to put up significant entry-costs, if the fore-ordained outcome is that the monopoly will drop prices _temporarily_ to below your break-even point, forcing you out of business?
they won’t take the risk unless they think the risk is worth it. if the profit potential is high enough, they’ll take the risk.
A zero cost-of-entry is thus required.
no such thing as a zero cost of entry.
Sure, you will have no problem raising money from investors who like to lose money.
you prove you have no idea what you’re talking about.
The market’s ability to work is absolutely FUBAR, thanks to an overdose of the Fed’s hair-of-the-dog cure of bailouts and quantitative easing.
The Fed’s QE allows companies in India to produce fake medicine?
I wouldn’t doubt it. An overdose of easy money inspires all kinds of harebrained investing schemes.
“let’s us see how well deregulation and an ‘unfettered’ free market would work”
A free market is more dangerous than a bureaucratically central planned system? There are an overwhelming number of examples what oligarchies act in violation of the interests of their own citizens. Did Saddam Hussein properly label the mixture of mustard gas and hydrogen cyanide he administered to his own peaceful civilian population during the Halabja and al-Anfal Campaigns?
In the case of the Indian incident cited above these drugs were approved by the U.S. F.D.A., a U.S. Federal Agency. How did the Agency act? If refused to release thousands of documents related to the case until a citizen used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover the F.D.A.’s unacceptable behavior.
What happened when Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (Mad Cow Disease) was discovered in the U.S.? The U.S. government passed a statute making it illegal for free market scientist and veterinarians to test the U.S. population of cattle and publish their findings. They tried to force their free market trade partners to import their infected cattle (such as Japan). Infected beef is still being found in U.S. exports (South Korea). Only the free market had remedied this. Exports of US beef declined from 1,300,000 metric tons in 2003, (before the first mad cow was detected in the US) to 322,000 metric tons in 2004. Please spoke with their wallets.
“A free market is more dangerous than a bureaucratically central planned system? “
These are not the only two options. There is a continuum between them with varying degrees of regulation.
Blindly taking chemistry from a “2nd world” foreign country? No thanks. Just finished an all natural breakfast smoothie made in my Vita-Prep 3 food processor. Well, off to work I go.
The story points out a possible role by Pfizer. Wouldn’t surprise me.
Again, too much “wishful thinking” going on these days (Kunstler).
Moo-oooooooooo:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_23328096/california-woman-surprised-give-birth-13-pound-10
Dang!
Good breeding stock…
If you’re breeding heifers. Obesity from birth, looks like.
Weird story. The “young” mother already has another child, yet no mention of a proud papi. Not that I could find, yet, looking at other reporting on it.
There is nothing like a vote of confidence for an unelected leader’s policies.
Oh wait…
The Coming End Of Quantitative Easing And The Ensuing Market Correction
May 27 2013, 00:58
US equities have passed irrational valuation levels across the bulk of sectors and the market has become uncomfortably close to an unsustainable level that is ripe for a sizable and likely volatile correction. Where we are today is a direct result of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program instituted to date.
As a background, the current quantitative easing program is summarized as follows:
The Federal Reserve (a semi-private / quasi-governmental institution) creates credit (essentially printing money) to buy mortgage backed securities and treasuries.
The following flow/cycle then takes place:
…
Stock markets lose nerve on fears of end to quantitative easing
Britain’s top companies lose £36bn in value as stock markets react to US warnings on QE and drop in Chinese manufacturing
Nick Fletcher
The Guardian, Thursday 23 May 2013 14.13 EDT
A trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange reacts as markets fall around the world. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
A day after the FTSE 100 came within 90 points of its December 1999 all-time high, the index slumped 143 points yesterday to 6696, wiping £36bn off the value of Britain’s top companies.
The 2.1% fall was the index’s worst in one day since it lost just over 2.5% a year ago to the day, on fears that Greece could leave the eurozone. But after its recent strong surge this latest fall in the blue-chip index merely wipes out the gains made since last Friday.
Stock markets around the world tumbled from their recent highs as investors took fright at weak Chinese manufacturing data and signs that the US Federal Reserve might end its bond-buying programme sooner than expected.
Markets have been buoyed in recent months by the various measures taken by central banks to stimulate the global economy by flooding it with cash. Measures include printing money, buying up mortgage-backed bonds and keeping interest rates at historic lows. Much of the recent economic data indicated the policy was having the desired effect, while the long-running eurozone crisis seemed to have entered a period of relative calm.
But analysts have been warning that any signs the money taps were about to be turned off or that the global economy was not recovering as expected would be taken badly by the markets.
…
Can somebody please explain to me the difference between macroeconomics and religion?
I didn’t think you could.
asset bubbles implode once you run out of new recruits.
I believe that’s the Gospel of Ponzi, not to be confused with monetarism.
If quantitative easing is ever withdrawn and the global economy slips back into recession, it will be the IMF’s and BIS’s fault for “attacking it.” It’s either QE-to-infinity-and-beyond from here on out, or else the Fed will get the chance to shift the blame to its critics.
Never mind that the global financial economy teeters on the brink of outright collapse five years after the fall 2008 financial crisis led to the onset of quantitative easing American style!
P.S. If anyone can explain how deflation hurt Japanese households with savings in the bank, please do so.
BIS and IMF attacks on quantitative easing deeply misguided warn monetarists
Monetarists across the world have warned that the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements are making an historic error by calling for a withdrawal of emergency stimulus before the global economy has fully recovered.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
3:59PM BST 19 May 2013
The BIS warned against “ever more monetary policy activism” to keep the global economy afloat. It called on the US, Britain, Japan, and the eurozone, to restore interest rates to normal levels “sooner rather than later.”
Photo: Getty Images
The two watchdogs launched broadsides against central bank largess last week. The BIS — the forum of central banks — was particularly blunt, seeming to imply that quantitative easing “does not work”.
Critics say this risks undermining the credibility of radical measures when more may yet be needed. They fear central banks could repeat the mistake made in 1937 when the Federal Reserve lost its nerve and tightened too soon, tipping America back into depression.
“The BIS and the IMF are deeply misguided and risk doing the world a grave disservice. The biggest threat right now is irrational fear of bubbles among central banks,” said Lars Christensen, a monetary theorist at Danske Bank.
“How can they criticize the Bank of Japan for pulling the country out of 15 years of deflation and the longest asset price collapse in modern history?”
…
“15 years of deflation”
2013-1989 = 24 years. D’oh…
Still collapsing after 24 years…perhaps the problem actually stems from central banking practices which lead to the development of ginormous, unsustainable asset price bubbles?
May 27, 2013, 4:17 a.m. EDT
Japan’s Nikkei ends down 3.2%; rest of Asia mixed
By V. Phani Kumar, MarketWatch
HONG KONG (MarketWatch) — Japanese stocks suffered deep losses Monday on the yen’s strength and further profit-taking after concerns about a rise in bond-market volatility helped stoke extreme swings late last week.
The Nikkei Stock Average (JP:NIK -3.22%) tumbled 3.2% to 14,142.65, falling significantly more than the 0.9% it picked up after Friday’s roller-coaster ride. The broader Topix (JP:NIK -3.22%) plummeted 3.4% to 1,154.07.
Still, both benchmarks had recovered from lows earlier in the day, when the Nikkei Average sank as much as 4%.
…
I bet if you walked into a walmart and asked 100 people what is quantitative easing maybe 10 could answer you somewhat competently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/24/kim-kardashian-kanye-west-baby-money_n_3330741.html
the difference between macroeconomics and religion?
The difference between macro- and microeconomics might be clearer:
In, for example, a housing bubble, microeconomics would say buy a house and get in on the easy profits. Macroeconomics would point out that houses are too expensive for incomes, and the easy profits won’t last.
“Macroeconomics would point out that houses are too expensive for incomes, and the easy profits won’t last.”
I call B.S. on this comment. Please cite a single established macroeconomist who is saying this or I stand by my call.
Don’t confuse macroeconomics with macro-economists.
Good point, Charlie.
cite a single established macroeconomist
Who is an ‘established macroeconomist’? Pretty much every school of economic thought includes macroeconomics- classical, Keynesian, monetarist, Austerian School, etc. But there is no school of macroeconomics.
“Who is an ‘established macroeconomist’”
I’m mainly referring to those with MSM bully pulpits:
Ben Bernanke
Lawrence Summers
Janet Yellen
Bradford Delong
Paul Krugman
etc etc etc
P.S. Robert Shiller or Simon Johnson might be exceptions to my challenge, but the MSM tends to dismiss anyone with an exceptional viewpoint as a crank.
I’m mainly referring to those with MSM bully pulpits:
Don’t forget
Hubbard
Nakiw
Lindsey
Mankiw
“Macroeconomics would point out that houses are too expensive for incomes, and the easy profits won’t last.
Hubbard
Mankiw
Lindsay
Mayer
Leamer”
Which of these would openly call attention to the growing disconnect between home prices and incomes?
Maybe Edward Glaeser would have the guts to point out the obvious to the clueless MSM financial journalists…
Macroeconomics is the sum of the voluntary exchanges and the forced (thugernment) exchanges between people. Religion is the wishful or fearful fantasies of people.
I’m still missing the difference. Sorry to appear so dense.
in one the activities are real. in the other, imagined.
OK, I’ll bite, thought I bet I’ll get some response about the Fed occupying this position:
Religion requires belief in a higher being with supernatural powers.
Macroeconomics requires the belief that looking at the economy as a whole is important to understanding it.
“Religion requires belief in a higher being with supernatural powers.”
BOOKS OF THE TIMES
By Christopher Lehmann-Haupt
Published: January 21, 1988
SECRETS OF THE TEMPLE: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country. By William Greider. 798 pages. Simon & Schuster. $24.95.
THE prospect of reading an 800-page book on the Federal Reserve System may very well not appeal to you particularly. That is exactly why you should keep on reading this review and then go out and get yourself a copy of William Greider’s ”Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country.”
…
There is a typo. “Runs” is missing an “i.”
‘“Runs” is missing an “i.”’
One begets the other.
LOL
Quantitative easing ‘is here to stay’
Published at 12:01AM, May 27 2013
If central banks raise interest rates, the housing, government bond and stock markets will correct themselves, leading to a banking crisis
Sir, Your leading article “Investor Exuberance” (May 24) is correct to suggest that asset prices are being sustained by artificially low interest rates. However, is there really an “exit plan” by the central bank out of the markets to raise interest rates and stop quantitative easing (QE)?
…
No easy way out of easy money for the U.S. or Japan: Dallara
May 27, 2013, 7:03 AM
Bloomberg
Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve
Perhaps worries about the Fed’s quantitative-easing exit, which have triggered sharp losses for Japan stocks and broke a four-week winning streak for Wall Street, aren’t exactly being overplayed.
That was Charles Dallara, the former managing director of the Institute of International Finance, a major lobby group for financial institutions, speaking to CNBC on Monday. Dallara was lead negotiator for private bondholders in talks to restructure Greek debt last year during the height of the European debt crisis.
Dallara, now chairman of the Americas at investment management company Partners Group, says he was a firm supporter of quantitative easing in 2009, 2010 and 2011, but now says the question must be asked as to whether that easy money has gone on too long and if the seeds are being sown for a “sharp correction not just in bond markets, but in stock markets.
…
I sure wish FPSS were around to weigh in on a thought that just occurred to me.
Do you guys remember how Jamie Dimon caught a bit of heat last year and beyond over that London Whale position that JPM couldn’t unwind without incurring massive losses?
I believe QE3 poses a similar problem for the Fed: It felt great to get in, but once in, there is no painless exit. The main difference appears to be that in the case of the Fed, we are talking about trillions, not billions.
Paging FPSS!
Unwinding will be a slow process.
with all the treasuries you dont have to sell all at once. Let the treasuries mature. Then the Govt issues new treasuries to pay off the old ones.
They dont have to dump this stuff all at once. It is a perpetual cycle of debt.
All you have to do is service the debt.
I believe QE3 poses a similar problem for the Fed: It felt great to get in, but once in, there is no
painlessexit.FTFY.
The main difference appears to be that in the case of the Fed, we are talking about trillions, not billions.
Unwinding will NOT be a slow process; it will be a verbal process only, used when necessary to caution the markets.
The main difference is that JPM actually needed to unwind. There were facing significant, and growing losses, and those losses required them to put up REAL additional collateral.
Contrast this with the Fed: they do not need to unwind ever; they do not even need to publicly admit their losses; they do not have to put up any, much less more collateral; they can print additional money at will to cover any and all losses; they will never be forced to unwind, but could hold all acquired assets to maturity, or even longer by rolling them over.
See the difference?
Unwinding will NOT
be a slow processhappen.“…it will be a verbal process only, used when necessary to caution the markets.”
I think of this as a means of shaking down speculators who seem to be getting overly irrationally exuberant.
Unwinding will NOT
be a slow processhappen.Preeeee-cisely!
If interest rates go up at a sufficient rate over a sufficiently short period of time than the U.S. Federal Reserve will have a negative net worth – it will technically be *insolvent* save some intervening remedy. The Fed “prints”” base” money only. (It does not print “hot” money). When the Fed prints base money it creates a liability on its balance sheet. The liability can only be created if it buys assets (of equal value) with the base money from a primary dealer (a bank) with the newly created money. The value of the assets purchased and the dollar liability created must be equal at the time of exchange. So there is no way for the Fed to print its way out of insolvency. Generally in situations such as this such as this the IMF would step in and bail-out the central bank. In this case the IMF is too small to bail out the Fed. The results will therefore be interesting to observe.
Maybe the U.S. should learn what civilized people learned over a millennium ago – thou shalt not use a debt based monetary system.
“It felt great to get in, but once in, there is no painless exit.”
Sounds like a really bad date.
Exactly the analogy that ran through my mind when I typed that!
And btw, the Fed researches this kind of predicament. They talk about “rules” and “discretion,” and the “commitment costs” involved with following the rules and the “weasel costs” associated with violating the rules.
Given the recent decision to shred the rule book and burn it, there are plenty of weasel costs to be paid down the road.
‘They talk about “rules” and “discretion,” and the “commitment costs” involved with following the rules and the “weasel costs” associated with violating the rules.’
Sounds a hell of a lot like marriage. And goes far to explain why I avoid exercising a level of discretion which could lead to weasel costs (e.g. family law attorney fees).
The recession is over!
I just spent the weekend in pensacola beach, and people are spending major ca$$h everywhere!
buy a house today and your problems will disappear tomorrow.
Even better!
Why buy a condo in Florida an then make it vacation rental!
The property will pay for itself
May a Florida condotel be upon you.
Last night I dreamed my timeshare was a deluxe condo and in the dream I did not fully realize I only had one week (oops) and was then slowly realizing the week was almost up. Must have been really into the HBB yesterday.
Sounds like QE3 will be ending any day now?
It will not end for a long time. If it does end we fall back into recession and asset prices crumble. When they want that to happen it will just like last time.
“After organizing FIGHT (an acronym for Freedom, Independence [subsequently Integration], God, Honor, Today) in Rochester, New York,[12] Alinsky once threatened to stage a “fart in” to disrupt the sensibilities of the city’s establishment at a Rochester Philharmonic concert.”
I had no idea!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
One of my cousins plays in that orchestra. I wonder if she heard that story? (Will have to ask her at our family reunion in a couple of months…)
And as all bassoonists know, the second movement of Haydn’s Symphony #93 has a built-in fart…
Do you play the buffoon?
My favorite bassoon “fart” is in Petrushka.
Bassoon
The world’s coolest instrument. Sounds like a dying duck fart, unless you know how to play. Which I do, so boo-yah. Also, as I’ve been told many many many many times, it looks like a bong. OK, I get it, move on with your life already.
Random Guy: Hehe… did you know your instrument looks like a bong?
Me: yes, the past 5 people to walk past have said that. But that still doesn’t mean you can put drugs in it, you disrespectful bassoon killer.
…
Serious connoisseurs of da kine have been known to keep their glass custom-carbs in modified bassoon cases….
Yuri Temirkanov conducts Stravinsky - Petrouchka, First Tableau - [Part 1/4]
Seriously distinctive bassoon fart at 5:11
In Europe, a Fed President Urges Quantitative Easing
By JACK EWING
Published: May 21, 2013
FRANKFURT — A top official of the Federal Reserve on Tuesday urged the European Central Bank to take more aggressive action to restart growth, warning that the euro area risked becoming mired in the same kind of economic stagnation that has plagued Japan for two decades, with far-reaching implications for the global economy.
James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and a voting member of the Fed’s policy-setting open markets committee, said Europe’s central bank should consider quantitative easing similar to that undertaken by the Fed — large bond purchases meant to drive down market interest rates.
The public comments were highly unusual. While central bankers from different countries frequently confer in private and offer advice and criticism to their peers behind closed doors, it is rare for any official to go public with even the mildest criticism of another central bank.
But with official interest rates in almost every advanced economy already close to zero, Mr. Bullard said, central bankers must reach for stronger tools to avoid getting trapped in economic doldrums.
“The lesson of Japan is that once you get stuck, it’s very hard to get out,” Mr. Bullard told an audience at Goethe University in Frankfurt. “One way to get stuck would be not to take aggressive action.”
Mr. Bullard sent a message to Wall Street not to expect the Fed to begin rolling back its own quantitative easing program soon, saying that there was no sign of inflation risk, and that even if there were, the central bank could deal with it.
“We just haven’t seen it so far,” Mr. Bullard said of inflation. And when it starts to appear, he added, “we know how to fight that problem — we can raise rates.”
…
ft dot com
May 26, 2013 6:55 pm
Europe’s future looks more Japanese than German
By Wolfgang Münchau
The process to resolve the crisis will take many years to complete
Flags are reflected in a window at the European Council building, a day before an E.U. heads of state summit in Brussels March 12, 2008. REUTERS/Thierry Roge (BELGIUM) - RTR1Y6RS©Reuters
Solving the eurozone crisis is a piece of a cake. I was reminded of that last week when I heard an economist cutting through all the complexity with a classic what-goes-up-must-come-down-type argument.
Germany improved its relative competitiveness against the eurozone during the first decade of the 21st century through wage moderation. But now German wages are rising at a slightly faster speed than those in Spain and Italy. Depending on your favourite metric for competitiveness and your own personal estimate of the required scale of adjustment, you can do the maths on how long it will take to complete the reversal.
Austerity drives this adjustment. It has turned current account deficits into current account surpluses by depressing imports. As countries deflate, exports become more competitive and, proponents of this view hope, growth will begin to rise slowly – exactly what happened in Germany in the 2000s.
The latter expectation, however, is wrong because it underestimates two factors. The first is the self-defeating impact of austerity on growth when interest rates are close to zero, as discussed many times on these pages.
The second factor is the presence of an unresolved banking crisis and an associate credit crunch, which will further depress nominal growth. In an environment of low nominal growth, high debt will not inflate away. The European Central Bank will not accept higher inflation. And Germany will not accept eurozone bonds, not even after its general election in September.
Policy makers are clinging to the hope that banking union will resolve everything. But can this new regime, once it is in place next year, do the job? Can it force a large-scale restructuring of the sector, close down unprofitable institutions, merge others or force partial nationalisations? Of course not.
…
If you look at QE closely it kind of reminds me of credit card companies and its customers.
They suck you in with a low interest rate. when that low interest rate expires you have two choices.
1. Pay off the debt
2. rollover the debt
well if you dont have the money to pay off the debt option 1 is out.
option 2 requires that you have somewhere to roll the debt. If interest rates are higher elsewhere it makes no sense to roll the debt.
Eventually they get you where they want you.
Is a bigger debt pile good for economic growth or isn’t it?
May 26, 2013, 2:14 p.m. EDT
Economists accuse Krugman of ‘uncivil behavior’
By Benjamin Pimentel, MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Harvard academics Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have accused fellow economist Paul Krugman of Princeton of ‘uncivil behavior’ in his criticisms of their work related to the debate over debt and austerity.
Reinhart and Rogoff are known for scholarly work that sought to highlight the negative effects of too much debt. Krugman, who is also a columnist for the New York Times, has been critical of their positions which are seen as endorsing controversial pro-austerity policies.
But Reinhart and Rogoff argue that some Krugman’s counterarguments have been unfair.
“We admire your past scholarly work, which influences us to this day,” a Saturday letter posted on Reinhart’s website said. “So it has been with deep disappointment that we have experienced your spectacularly uncivil behavior the past few weeks.”
The Harvard economists also wrote, “Your characterization of our work and of our policy impact is selective and shallow. It is deeply misleading about where we stand on the issues.”
Krugman responded in a New York Times blog post on Sunday, saying Reinhart and Rogoff have not offered a clear position on the impact of debt on economic growth.
Krugman argued that there is “an enormous difference between the statement “countries with debt over 90% of GDP [gross domestic product] tend to have slower growth than countries with debt below 90% of GDP” and the statement “growth drops off sharply when debt exceeds 90% of GDP”. The former statement is true; the latter isn’t.”
Krugman has no credibility he is just a mouth piece pumping Feds action in the media. Which is his real agenda.
Just a pathetic figure figure all around. I’m sure the guy would expire if people ignored him completely, which is what I wish they’d do.
is a bigger debt pile better for the central bank or the taxpayer?
Neither. Either the central bank has to expand its balance sheet or the taxpayer has to make larger interest payments for the same level of service, both undesirable alternatives.
Is the central bank in the business of making money or helping people?
It depends. Are you talking about their propaganda campaign or their actions?
oh i’m just trying to figure out who is winning here. I think the whole motto is that they are there to help the economy and you.
Folks seem to forget that this is a private bank. Banks are in the business of making money.
Right now they are enabling borrowing fairly cheap.
What happens if interest rates rise dramatically down the road?
The govt is locked in to low rates for awhile but what happens when those treasuries mature and you dont have the money to pay back?
Well if you dont have money you have to issue new debt. But lets say rates are a lot higher when you need to borrow down the road. It will cost a lot more to service all that debt as it matures.
What happens if interest rates rise dramatically down the road?
not much other than people stop buying big ticket items they can’t afford. then prices have to come down. oh the horror..
But lets say rates are a lot higher when you need to borrow down the road. It will cost a lot more to service all that debt as it matures.
then you have to live within your means.
what happens if interest rates goes to infinity? no one borrows, but life goes on. people will still go to work and buy things. people will save money because whatever the savings rates were, they would be very high. life would continue, and i think get better. but everyone else will tell it’s the end of the world.
now how about fiscal policy? what if tax rates went to 100% (doesn’t have to be that high, can be something substantially less)? people would stop working. the economy would die.
now tell me which is more important, monetary or fiscal policy?
“…now how about fiscal policy? what if tax rates went to 100% (doesn’t have to be that high, can be something substantially less)? people would stop working. the economy would die.”
It sounds like we better keep tax rates ultra-low and let the Fed’s printing press do the work of stealth taxation.
“oh i’m just trying to figure out who is winning here.”
< <
< < < < <
< < < < <
< <
May 27, 2013, 12:49 a.m. EDT
Oil futures extend losing run, fall below $94
By Carla Mozee, MarketWatch
LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — U.S. crude-oil futures declined Monday, stretching last week’s losses which came in part on worries about slowing growth in China.
Crude for July delivery fell 61 cents, or 0.7%, to $93.54 a barrel in electronic trade.
Floor trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange was slated to resume Tuesday, following Monday’s U.S. Memorial Day holiday.
Oil futures in Nymex action on Friday recorded their fourth consecutive loss.
…
Demand for oil has fallen off a cliff in the US. we are back to the 90’s in regards to demand.
It’s amazing prices stay as high as they are, considering…
the printing press has done wonders.
If there was a lot of gold would it be as valuable?
“Demand for oil has fallen off a cliff in the US. we are back to the 90’s in regards to demand.”
How do you figure?
Production of oil is nowhere near 90s level. It’s about 40% higher. Production levels are determined by demand. Oil isn’t pumped if there’s no buyer for it. Crude oil production due to increased demand has been steadily increasing over the past 20 years.
Worldwide crude oil production:
1990: 60K BBL/day
2000: 66K BBL/day
2012: 75K BBL/day
“Production levels are determined by demand.”
Not always. Exhibit A: Look around at the millions of vacant homes in both the U.S. and China.
Demand for oil has fallen off a cliff in the US.
He said demand had fallen IN THE US.
You respond with data about worldwide demand, and try to use that to refute a statement about demand in the US?
You’re not making any sense, Smithers…
Maybe he doesn’t realize that oil is an internationally traded commodity?
May 27, 2013, 12:12 p.m. EDT
Oil down with China growth expectations
OPEC likely to hold output at current 30 million barrels a day
By Kate Gibson and Carla Mozee, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Oil declined on Monday for a fifth day after China indicated it would accept a reduced pace of economic growth and before an OPEC gathering later in the week.
Crude for July delivery CLN3 -0.67% fell 57 cents, or 0.6%, to $93.61 a barrel in electronic trade. Monday’s electronic transactions will be booked with Tuesday’s trades for settlement.
Floor trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange was slated to resume Tuesday, following Monday’s U.S. Memorial Day holiday.
…
“You’re not making any sense, Smithers…”
EddieTard Slithers has a propensity to leave out important distinctions.
You’re an untrusthworthy hack EddieTard Slithers.
So long as you realize he is a troll and a propaganda hack, it’s easy to compartmentalize his posts.
May 26, 2013, 11:09 a.m. EDT
Global protests against Monsanto’s GMO seeds
By MarketWatch
Organizers say marchers in more than 400 cities across 52 countries took part in protests against seed giant Monsanto (MON -0.15%) on Saturday, the Associated Press reported. March Against Monsanto protesters say they wanted to call attention to the dangers posed by genetically modified food and the food giants that produce it, the AP said.
to paraphrase mr smither’s comments on anti-gmo sentiments, ‘those occupiers need to occupy a shower and get a job’
Why would a member of the 47 percent ever do such a thing?
umm, so they can earn only enough to qualify for the maximum earned income tax credit?
Hah! You have a great answer for every question!!!
Who is better at science: Women or men?
And would the global economy be more efficient if rich countries like the U.S. dumped traded pollutants for dollars with poor countries?
Ask Bengladesh.
Ask Larry Summers.
Sorry, I was responding to the second question.
He had interesting answers for both (did you click on the link above?)…
ft dot com
Larry Summers has an edge in the race to head the Federal Reserve
By Edward Luce
Charm is overrated. The most important quality for the role is intellectual leadership
Matt Kenyon illustration©Matt Kenyon
When Wall Street predicts something will happen in Washington, it is often wise to bet on the opposite. Multiple polls show Janet Yellen, vice-chair of the US Federal Reserve, as the strong favourite to be named Ben Bernanke’s replacement as chair – an announcement that is likely by September.
Such certainty is puzzling: there is no evidence President Barack Obama sees Ms Yellen as a shoo-in. Nor does his likely shortlist – which includes two former Treasury secretaries, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner; and a former vice-chairman of the Fed, Donald Kohn – suggest Ms Yellen as the inescapable choice. Each is an impressive name, as are possible outsiders such as Stanley Fischer, governor of the Bank of Israel (who holds dual nationality). Mr Obama has a deep bench from which to choose.
It is my bet he will settle on Mr Summers. The case for Ms Yellen is strong. Her economic credentials are a match for anyone’s, including Mr Summers. Having been head of the San Francisco Fed, her central bank experience is also deep. Yet Ms Yellen has a reputation as dove at a time when the cycle may be close to turning. By next January, when Mr Bernanke’s successor takes over, the long phase of monetary easing is likely to be tapering off. Last week, Mr Bernanke assured Congress that the monthly $85bn of asset purchases in the third round of quantitative easing would continue as long as there was any question about the US recovery. Such doubt grows a little weaker with each Fed meeting. The US economy is picking up speed.
…
Ah, the “always brilliant” Mr. Summers.
How about a gentile next time?
It’s lucky that the Fed chairman position is unelected.
Don’t Let Larry Summers Off the Hook Yet
Why the Harvard president’s tactless social science was a bad idea.
By Meghan O’Rourke|Posted Friday, Jan. 28, 2005, at 6:06 PM
In the weeks since debate erupted over Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ suggestion that “innate differences” between men and women help explain the lack of top-level female professionals in science and engineering, a remarkably consistent narrative has emerged in the mainstream media: Summers is a martyr to political correctness. He’s the inquisitive freethinker asking the hard questions that need to be asked, while his small-minded critics are thwarting serious debate. These women, a Washington Post columnist argued, epitomize the “unwillingness of the modern academy to tolerate … freewheeling inquiry.”
…
Good observation by Ben from yesterday:
How could something not go wrong? Then consider the other side effects of low rates; stock bubbles, govt. bonds markets with trillion$ earning less than inflation. Junk bond markets pouring billions into corporations, many of whom should have gone out of business years ago. With all that, many of the largest countries are either in recession or on the brink. Everywhere there’s debt, debt, debt. I don’t think the central banks will raise rates. IMO, circumstances are going to do that for them.
The big question is what will those people that are employed in these companies, govt do?
IMHO, we have reached the maximum in production of everything that the first world can buy (TVs, cars, furniture etc.) There is only the replacement market in the developed countries.
The south and east Asian and African markets are too poor to afford these products. The production of goods are saturated. Hence the need to produce junk stuff and nick-knacks that people here don’t mind paying for 10 times than spend the same amount once to buy a quality item.
“IMHO, we have reached the maximum in production of everything that the first world can buy (TVs, cars, furniture etc.) There is only the replacement market in the developed countries. ”
Everything that can be invented has been invented.
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899
that was a great counter Mr. Smithers. it points out the obvious.
That statement by Duell was patently not true in 1899. Little did he know that!
In a sense he is right about the direction - the law of diminishing returns. If you apply this to engineering: the gains that are coming are due to innovations in materials. Same thing with electronics (as a subset of engineering) - materials and application.
Medicine is making strides in finding new techniques. But at the same time new “inventions” are being made in treatments!
Check out the late response on the 5/24 thread “The Answer to Every Problem”!
It appears to be from the fellow who was attempting adverse possession in that FL case!
Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-05-26 14:28:30
Wages and Salaries as a percentage of GDP.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2Xa
Holy-moly, that graph is one of the most compelling and damning that I have seen. It makes crystal-clear what has been happening in our hollowed-out shell of an economy over the past 40yrs.
Yikes.
Like I just posted on the other thread, the U.S. taxpayer is too tapped out at this point to shoulder any more bailouts.
No worries—we’ll just borrow it from future taxpayers, in the hope that they won’t be as tapped out 100yrs or so into the future. But none of us will be alive, so who cares, right?
You mean the college-debt strapped guys standing over there in the unemployment line? THOSE future taxpayers?
1. Be aware that the Y-axis doesn’t start at 0.
2. Looks like the definition of “recession” doesn’t bear much relation to the middle class.
The location of the Y-axis does not obviate the key take-home of the graph, which is that after a long period of relative stability, U.S. household labor market income as a share of GDP has undergone a protracted downtrend from a level over 53% in 1968 to under 44% now.
3. Be aware that Oxide, our blog Debt Donkey, flails away at anything that threatens to poke a hole in the bubble she lives in.
Whatever.
No matter how the Y-axis is scaled, the trend displayed in the graph shows an irreversible slide in the household income share of U.S. GDP, which represents the middle class getting thrown under the bus by decades of Greenspan and Bernanke monetary policy.
Clearly middle class workers have been getting steadily more lazy over the past 4½ decades.
This would make houses cheap. I personally could have done without the three 6s in this bill. Nonetheless, if FEMA can’t keep enough bottled water stocked for the aftermath of a hurricanne, how are they going to handle the coordination of mass fatalities from a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster?
PS
I don’t think they are going to be able to hold it down to just the teabillies.
H.R. 6566 (112th): Mass Fatality Planning and Religious Considerations Act
112th Congress, 2011–2013. Text as of Sep 28, 2012 (Introduced).
HR 6566 IH
112th CONGRESS
2d Session
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 28, 2012
Ms. RICHARDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide guidance and coordination for mass fatality planning, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Mass Fatality Planning and Religious Considerations Act’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Emergency preparedness often plans for how to prepare and provide for survivors of a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster, but fails to plan for how to prepare for and respond to mass fatalities that result from such an incident.
(2) Funeral homes, cemeteries, and mortuaries could be overwhelmed should mass fatalities arise from a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster.
(3) Different religions have different customs surrounding death; for example, the Jewish and Muslim religions call for burial of the deceased not later than 48 hours after death.
SEC. 3. PREPAREDNESS FOR MASS FATALITIES RESULTING FROM A NATURAL DISASTER, ACT OF TERRORISM, OR OTHER MAN-MADE DISASTER.
Section 504 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 314) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘(c) Preparedness for Mass Fatalities- In carrying out this section, the Administrator shall provide guidance to and coordinate with appropriate individuals, including representatives from different communities, private sector businesses, non-profit organizations, and religious organizations, to prepare for and respond to a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster that results in mass fatalities.’.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6566/text - 24k -
Nonetheless, if FEMA can’t keep enough bottled water stocked for the aftermath of a hurricanne,
Maybe people should start behaving semi-responsibly, and start stocking some of their own water if they live in a hurricane zone?
Nah…
Of course, stocking your own body-bags does seem a little macabre.
May 27, 2013, 12:56 p.m. EDT
Bears cite performance chasing as stocks rise
By Wallace Witkowski, MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — The bears are warning: A herd mentality on Wall Street is driving stocks to unsustainable levels.
As an extended rally prompts some strategists to raise their price targets for the year, the pessimistic ones are arguing that those prices are being supported more by performance-chasing investors than by any real improvement in fundamentals.
“My experience is when managers are overly focused on performance on a near-term basis, and worried they’re missing out, it means they’re buying stocks for the wrong reasons,” said Brian Belski, chief investment strategist at BMO Capital Markets.
…
Gomer McSame in Syria wants to arm the rebels, who really are Al Qaeda
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20130527sen-mccain-makes-trip-syria-visit-rebels.html
Scotland: Every Child to Have “State Guardian” From Birth
Dystopian plan would see government social worker assigned to spy on every family
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 27, 2013
Every child in Scotland is to be assigned a “state minder” from birth under draconian new proposals that would enable the government to spy on families under the justification of preventing “child abuse”.
Writing in the Scotsman of how he penned a dystopian novel based around this very scenario of every child being assigned a government mentor, sociology and criminology lecturer at the University of Abertay Dundee Stuart Walton writes, “Unfortunately, this dystopian future has arrived a little faster than I imagined, as last week the Scottish Government’s plan to give every child a state guardian from birth was launched.”
“This state-appointed overseer will be a specific, named individual, and every child will have one, from birth. The responsibility for creating this named guardian will fall on the heads of the health boards for the first five years of a child’s life, before being transferred to councils.”
The program is a statutory initiative built into the Children and Young People Bill. Children’s minister Aileen Campbell justified the proposal by asserting it would “make sure there is someone having an overview of what is happening to that child, to make sure that early indicators of anything that would pose a threat or risk to that child are flagged up”.
Walton speculates on what kind of behavior could eventually be deemed “child abuse,” including the contents of a child’s school lunch box or a re-definition of “bullying” to include a parent shouting at their kid.
Indeed, as we have previously documented, schools are now encouraging children to spy on their parents’ recycling habits in the name of protecting mother earth. Could the alleged eco-crime of failing to place a piece of cardboard in the correct trash can prompt the child to report his parents to the “state guardian” and spark an investigation?
In the aftermath of the Jimmy Savile scandal, concern about child abuse is rampant in the UK but it is a fear that has largely been generated by media scaremongering and not an actual marked increase in cases of child abuse.
Top judges like Alan Goldsack QC are also calling on the government to intervene to remove children from “criminal families” at birth. As part of what it calls “Family Intervention Projects,” the British government has also forced thousands of families to install surveillance cameras inside their own homes while subjecting them to home visits to ensure that children go to bed on time, attend school and eat proper meals.
The idea of having a government social worker assigned to spy on every family via the child is an abhorrent notion that would only be accepted in despotic hellholes like North Korea, Maoist China, or Stalinist Russia, yet it is calmly being proposed in current legislation.
The secret police of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu also recruited thousands of children aged 12-14 to spy on their school friends, parents and teachers, according to communist-era archives. At the height of the dictatorship, a staggering 15 per cent of the country’s informants were children. They were encouraged to report anyone who expressed a political opinion contrary to the status quo or those who merely made a joke of Ceausescu.
Is the Scottish government also taking cues from George Orwell’s 1984? In the dystopian classic, “children who turned in their own parents as traitors” are treated as heroes by the Party.
The notion of children being the collective property of the state is also creeping into American society. As we reported last month, college professor and MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry caused an outcry amongst conservatives when she remarked, “We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families,” as part of a promotional video for an MSNBC campaign entitled ‘Lean Forward’.
Watch the video below.
http://www.infowars.com/scotland-every-child-to-have-state-guardian-from-birth/ - -
Sounds like a great way to reduce the welfare rolls, actually. Take your parental responsibilities seriously or lose your benefit. Next step is to limit who gets to reproduce on the public dime.
As for governments encouraging school children to spy and inform on their parents, may I refer you to Mommy Reagan’s “DARE” program?
‘Common Core’ Nationalizes and Dumbs Down Public School Curriculum
Ron Paul
Infowars.com
May 27, 2013
In addition to shredding civil liberties, launching a utopian global war for democracy, and going on a spending spree that would make LBJ blush, the so-called “conservative” Bush administration dramatically increased federal control over education via the “No Child Left Behind” act. During my time in Congress I heard nothing but complaints about this law from teachers, administrators, and, most importantly, students and parents. Most of the complaints concerned No Child Left Behind’s testing requirements, which encouraged educators to “teach to the test.”
Sadly, but not surprisingly, instead of improving education by repealing No Child Left Behind’s testing and other mandates, the Obama administration is increasing national control over schools via the “Common Core” initiative. Common Core is a new curriculum developed by a panel of so-called education experts. The administration is trying to turn Common Core into a national curriculum by offering states increased federal education funding if they impose Common Core’s curriculum on their public schools. This is yet another example of the government using money stolen from the people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.
Critics of Common Core say it “dumbs down” education by replacing traditional English literature with “informational texts”. So students will read such inspiring materials as studies by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the EPA’s “Recommended Levels of Insulation,” and “Invasive Plant Inventory” by California’s Invasive Plant Council. It is doubtful that reading federal reports will teach students the habits of critical thinking and skepticism of government that the Founders considered essential to maintaining a free republic.
Like Obamacare, Common Core (now dubbed “ObamaCore” by some) has sparked a backlash in the states, leading some to propose legislation forbidding state participation in the scheme. I hope these efforts lead to states not just opting out of Common Core, but out of No Child Left Behind and all other federal education programs as well.
Parents can also effectively “opt out” of programs like Common Core by seeking alternatives to government education. It is no coincidence that, as federal control over education increases, the quality of public education has declined and more parents have chosen to homeschool.
To support these parents, I have established my own homeschool curriculum. Unlike Common Core, we do not dumb down any of our offerings. Instead, the goal is to provide students with a rigorous education in history, math, English, foreign languages, and other core subjects necessary to a well-rounded education. Unlike the top-down model of nationalized education, the homeschool curriculum is deigned to encourage maximum input from parents and students. While the curriculum will reflect my belief, and interest, in Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of the struggle against state power, the curriculum is being carefully designed to not show bias toward any one religion. I hope all parents of any faith—or no religious belief at all—will feel comfortable using the curriculum.
I believe it is important for those of us concerned with education and liberty to fight our battles locally. We must oppose further encroachment on the autonomy of local public schools and work to roll-back existing interference, while encouraging and supporting the growth of homeschooling and other alternative education movements. The key to restoring quality education is to replace the bureaucratic control of education with a free-market in education. Parents should have the freedom to select the type of education that best suits their child’s unique needs.
Former Congressman Paul’s article first appeared at the-free-foundation.org, the temporary home for his weekly column until his personal web page is up and running.
54 Responses to “‘Common Core’ Nationalizes and Dumbs Down Public School Curriculum”
poobah53 says:
May 27, 2013 at 3:22 pm
“I have an earache in my eye!”
World Bank Insider Blows Whistle on Corruption, Federal Reserve
by Alex Newman
The New American
May 25, 2013
A former insider at the World Bank, ex-Senior Counsel Karen Hudes, says the global financial system is dominated by a small group of corrupt, power-hungry figures centered around the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve. The network has seized control of the media to cover up its crimes, too, she explained. In an interview with The New American, Hudes said that when she tried to blow the whistle on multiple problems at the World Bank, she was fired for her efforts. Now, along with a network of fellow whistleblowers, Hudes is determined to expose and end the corruption. And she is confident of success.
Citing an explosive 2011 Swiss study published in the PLOS ONE journal on the “network of global corporate control,” Hudes pointed out that a small group of entities – mostly financial institutions and especially central banks – exert a massive amount of influence over the international economy from behind the scenes. “What is really going on is that the world’s resources are being dominated by this group,” she explained, adding that the “corrupt power grabbers” have managed to dominate the media as well. “They’re being allowed to do it.”
According to the peer-reviewed paper, which presented the first global investigation of ownership architecture in the international economy, transnational corporations form a “giant bow-tie structure.” A large portion of control, meanwhile, “flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions.” The researchers described the core as an “economic ‘super-entity’” that raises important issues for policymakers and researchers. Of course, the implications are enormous for citizens as well.
Hudes, an attorney who spent some two decades working in the World Bank’s legal department, has observed the machinations of the network up close. “I realized we were now dealing with something known as state capture, which is where the institutions of government are co-opted by the group that’s corrupt,” she told The New American in a phone interview. “The pillars of the U.S. government – some of them – are dysfunctional because of state capture; this is a big story, this is a big cover up.”
At the heart of the network, Hudes said, are 147 financial institutions and central banks – especially the Federal Reserve, which was created by Congress but is owned by essentially a cartel of private banks. “This is a story about how the international financial system was secretly gamed, mostly by central banks – they’re the ones we are talking about,” she explained. “The central bankers have been gaming the system. I would say that this is a power grab.”
The Fed in particular is at the very center of the network and the coverup, Hudes continued, citing a policy and oversight body that includes top government and Fed officials. Central bankers have also been manipulating gold prices, she added, echoing widespread concerns that The New American has documented extensively. Indeed, even the inaccurate World Bank financial statements that Hudes has been trying to expose are linked to the U.S. central bank, she said.
“The group that we’re talking about from the Zurich study – that’s the Federal Reserve; it has some other pieces to it, but that’s the Federal Reserve,” Hudes explained. “So the Federal Reserve secretly dominated the world economy using secret, interlocking corporate directorates, and terrorizing anybody who managed to figure out that they were having any kind of role, and putting people in very important positions so that they could get a free pass.”
The shadowy but immensely powerful Bank for International Settlements serves as “the club of these private central bankers,” Hudes continued. “Now, are people going to want interest on their country’s debts to continue to be paid to that group when they find out the secret tricks that that group has been doing? Don’t forget how they’ve enriched themselves extraordinarily and how they’ve taken taxpayer money for the bailout.”
As far as intervening in the gold price, Hudes said it was an effort by the powerful network and its central banks to “hold onto its paper currency” – a suspicion shared by many analysts and even senior government officials. The World Bank whistleblower also said that contrary to official claims, she did not believe there was any gold being held in Fort Knox. Even congressmen and foreign governments have tried to find out if the precious metals were still there, but they met with little success. Hudes, however, believes the scam will eventually come undone.
“This is like crooks trying to figure out where they can go hide. It’s a mafia,” she said. “These culprits that have grabbed all this economic power have succeeded in infiltrating both sides of the issue, so you will find people who are supposedly trying to fight corruption who are just there to spread disinformation and as a placeholder to trip up anybody who manages to get their act together.… Those thugs think that if they can keep the world ignorant, they can bleed it longer.”
Read the rest of the article
http://lewrockwell.com/spl5/world-bank-insider-blows-whistle.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=world-bank-insider-blows-the-whistle - 17k -
World Bank Insider Blows Whistle on Corruption, Federal Reserve
by Alex Newman
The New American
May 25, 2013
Of course, the major corruption at the highest levels of government and business is not a new phenomenon. Georgetown University historian and Professor Carroll Quigley, who served as President Bill Clinton’s mentor, for example, wrote about the scheme in his 1966 book Tragedy And Hope: A History Of The World In Our Time. The heavyweight academic, who was allowed to review documents belonging to the top echelons of the global establishment, even explained how the corrupt system would work — remarkably similar to what Hudes describes.
“The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole,” wrote Prof. Quigley, who agreed with the goals but not the secrecy. “This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”
But it is not going to happen, Hudes said — at least not if she has something do to with it. While the media are dominated by the “power grabber” network, Hudes has been working with foreign governments, reporters, U.S. officials, state governments, and a broad coalition of fellow whistleblowers to blow the entire scam wide open. There has been quite a bit of interest, too, particularly among foreign governments and state officials in the United States.
Citing the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers in creating a federal system of government with multiple layers of checks and balances, Hudes said she was confident that the network would eventually be exposed and subjected to the rule of law, stopping the secret corruption. If and when that happens — even if it may be disorderly — Hudes says precious metals will once again play a role in imposing discipline on the monetary system. The rule of law would also be restored, she said, and the public will demand a proper press to stay informed.
“We’re going to have a cleaned-up financial system, that’s where it is going, but in the meantime, people who didn’t know how the system was gamed are going to find out,” she said. “We’re going to have a different kind of international financial system…. It’ll be a new kind of world where people know what’s going on — no more backroom deals; that’s not going to keep happening. We’re going to have a different kind of media if people don’t want to be dominated and controlled, which I don’t think they do.”
While Hudes sounded upbeat, she recognizes that the world is facing serious danger right now — there are even plans in place to impose martial law in the United States, she said. The next steps will be critical for humanity. As such, Hudes argues, it is crucial that the people of the world find out about the lawlessness, corruption, and thievery that are going on at the highest levels — and put a stop to it once and for all. The consequences of inaction would be disastrous.
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. He can be reached atanewman@thenewamerican.com.
Moving new money into the 80/20 stocks to bonds ratio:
Okay for Whac especially to note, I got into Vanguard’s investor shares of the REIT index fund. $3,000 to get in VGSIX. Figuring in a little over 30 months they will put me in the admiral version of that fund, based on my future monthly investments.
Looking at their midcap, VMGRX. I weighed that compared to VHCOX and vmgix. Might get into that one this Fall. VHCOX is a good performer, but not truly a mid-cap.
Scaled back on VSGAX, the small company stock index fund which has been my best performer the last several years.
My advisors say I should get out of the high yield corporate bond fund, and as soon as I’m permitted by Vanguard, I will stop my contributions to that one. It’s yielding about $71 per month income, which is fine by me.
“…get out of the high yield corporate bond fund…”
Did they have any rational to back that one up, or is that just their ‘expert advice’?
Because it seems to me that if the economy improves, high yield bonds will command relatively lower yields, reflecting lower default risk relative to super safe stuff (Treasurys, GSE debt, etc). Thus one might guess that if Treasury bond yields increased in response to economic recovery, narrowing of the spread of high yield corporate debt over Treasurys might provide a buffer.
And if the economy doesn’t improve, then the default risk associated with a bad economy is already priced into the high yields you already are receiving.
It’s their “Expert advice” - actually that VWESX has been a good fund for me. And yes things might already be priced into high yield bonds. Yes if interest rates go up the NAV will go down and yields of shares of future purchases of new bonds will go up. I have no complaints of keeping it. They seem to want to ditch all corporate bonds for some reason.
They seem to want to ditch all corporate bonds for some reason.
Maybe because they know that most bonds are currently over-priced relative to their risk, due to QE-infinity?
Perhaps.
These guys manage only 22% of my assets (I don’t want any adviser to have 100% access).
“They seem to want to ditch all corporate bonds for some reason.”
My advice: If you have some (sufficiently diversified) high-yield corporate bonds and some higher-rated low-yield corporates, ditch the latter, as they are sure to go down in value when interest rates rise.
As already noted above, when rates start to rise in response to economic recovery, the narrowing of spreads due to declining risk of lower-rated bond default will buffer high-yield bonds against the predictable 20-year crash in Treasurys and MBS.