U.S. money supply suffers sharpest contraction since Great Depression

[vnatale]

Wasn't the money supply something that our KGB paid particular attention to?

From reading the below it does not seem to contain good news for our financial future.

Vinny




U.S. money supply suffers sharpest contraction since Great Depression

https://economiccollapsenews.com/2023/0 ... 3fYi7B0CcT

[glennds]

Wasn't the money supply something that our KGB paid particular attention to?

From reading the below it does not seem to contain good news for our financial future.

Vinny




U.S. money supply suffers sharpest contraction since Great Depression

https://economiccollapsenews.com/2023/0 ... 3fYi7B0CcT

My two takeaways -
The website is called economiccollapsenews.com.
And the article does not contain good news for our financial future.

I'll come right out and say it; reading between the lines, I think they're predicting an economic collapse.

[vnatale]

Wasn't the money supply something that our KGB paid particular attention to?

From reading the below it does not seem to contain good news for our financial future.

Vinny




U.S. money supply suffers sharpest contraction since Great Depression

https://economiccollapsenews.com/2023/0 ... 3fYi7B0CcT

My two takeaways -
The website is called economiccollapsenews.com.
And the article does not contain good news for our financial future.

I'll come right out and say it; reading between the lines, I think they're predicting an economic collapse.

A man WITH a sense of humor!

Before I put it here I did do a wikipedia search to see if the web sites was one of those extreme and less trustworthy web sites. Did not find anything.

Plus in reading the article it was not at all hysterical and seemed to be quite fair, balanced, and comprehensive.

[glennds]

A man WITH a sense of humor!

Before I put it here I did do a wikipedia search to see if the web sites was one of those extreme and less trustworthy web sites. Did not find anything.

Plus in reading the article it was not at all hysterical and seemed to be quite fair, balanced, and comprehensive.

Hey Vinny,
You took the sarcasm like a good sport! My lame-ass joking aside, I have heard other analyses drawing attention to the money supply trend and how it has correlated to bad economic conditions in the past. As interesting as it is, there's no way to know if history will repeat itself here.
One of the problems is that a large influx in the money supply was Covid related stimulus, and we don't really have a good precedent for that let alone a precedent for removing it.

My second, bigger issue is whether all comparisons to the past are invariably apples and oranges because the way monetary policy is managed today is radically different than in the past, not to mention the way the global economy functions.
We're in uncharted territory IMO, and the past is just not a prediction of the future.

[vnatale]

A man WITH a sense of humor!

Before I put it here I did do a wikipedia search to see if the web sites was one of those extreme and less trustworthy web sites. Did not find anything.

Plus in reading the article it was not at all hysterical and seemed to be quite fair, balanced, and comprehensive.

Hey Vinny,
You took the sarcasm like a good sport! My lame-ass joking aside, I have heard other analyses drawing attention to the money supply trend and how it has correlated to bad economic conditions in the past. As interesting as it is, there's no way to know if history will repeat itself here.
One of the problems is that a large influx in the money supply was Covid related stimulus, and we don't really have a good precedent for that let alone a precedent for removing it.

My second, bigger issue is whether all comparisons to the past are invariably apples and oranges because the way monetary policy is managed today is radically different than in the past, not to mention the way the global economy functions.
We're in uncharted territory IMO, and the past is just not a prediction of the future.

Your second applies to so much in regards to investing when we try to look to history to guide the future.

[Xan]

The measure of trust for a random site is whether or not it's mentioned on Wikipedia?

[vnatale]

The measure of trust for a random site is whether or not it's mentioned on Wikipedia?

Not totally. More of a sign that if some negative information about it is on Wikipedia then one should probably use the web site with caution.

[Xan]

The measure of trust for a random site is whether or not it's mentioned on Wikipedia?

Not totally. More of a sign that if some negative information about it is on Wikipedia then one should probably use the web site with caution.

So... Any site that doesn't have negative information about it on Wikipedia is treated uncritically?

[D1984]

The measure of trust for a random site is whether or not it's mentioned on Wikipedia?

Not totally. More of a sign that if some negative information about it is on Wikipedia then one should probably use the web site with caution.

So... Any site that doesn't have negative information about it on Wikipedia is treated uncritically?

Not exactly. IMO It's more like "any site that doesn't have any negative info about it on Wikipedia has at least passed the first filter and thus merits further investigation because what it is saying might conceivably be true" whereas for almost any site that does have negative info about it on Wikipedia that means that you can almost certainly safely ignore said site as a source of useful, true, and factually correct information.

I liken it to trying to see if (for example) someone's claim about a new, innovative, non-polluting, and low-cost energy source is true. Just upon initially hearing about something like this I might be inclined to believe it or not (depending on how skeptical I was, how much I already knew about the person making said claim and his/her trustworthiness, expertise, and/or lack thereof of both, and on how much I already knew about said subject) but let me tell you, if the purveyor of said idea starts spouting off about free energy, perpetual motion, over unity, etc my BS detectors instantly go off and I know that I can safely ignore anything else that individual has to say about their supposed marvelous new source of energy. In other words, an effective BS filter.

The mere fact of "well, at least it doesn't have something negative about it on Wikipedia" acts as a "first-line of defense" BS filter that lets one at least know which sites are so bad (in terms of being factually wrong) that they don't even merit further looking at.

[vnatale]

The measure of trust for a random site is whether or not it's mentioned on Wikipedia?

Not totally. More of a sign that if some negative information about it is on Wikipedia then one should probably use the web site with caution.

So... Any site that doesn't have negative information about it on Wikipedia is treated uncritically?

No.

Now through this forum I find you to be a highly logical person.

But I don't think through any kind of logic you can make a direct connection from my statement to your statement.

I believe my statement is saying that if there is some negative regarding the site on Wikipedia then you proceed with caution. It does not mean that if there is nothing negative about it on Wikipedia then you should treat it uncritically. I went to Wikipedia first before I even started reading it. Found nothing so continued to read. After I read it I could have still found it not to be a trustworthy site.

[vnatale]

The measure of trust for a random site is whether or not it's mentioned on Wikipedia?

Not totally. More of a sign that if some negative information about it is on Wikipedia then one should probably use the web site with caution.

So... Any site that doesn't have negative information about it on Wikipedia is treated uncritically?

Not exactly. IMO It's more like "any site that doesn't have any negative info about it on Wikipedia has at least passed the first filter and thus merits further investigation because what it is saying might conceivably be true" whereas for almost any site that does have negative info about it on Wikipedia that means that you can almost certainly safely ignore said site as a source of useful, true, and factually correct information.

I liken it to trying to see if (for example) someone's claim about a new, innovative, non-polluting, and low-cost energy source is true. Just upon initially hearing about something like this I might be inclined to believe it or not (depending on how skeptical I was, how much I already knew about the person making said claim and his/her trustworthiness, expertise, and/or lack thereof of both, and on how much I already knew about said subject) but let me tell you, if the purveyor of said idea starts spouting off about free energy, perpetual motion, over unity, etc my BS detectors instantly go off and I know that I can safely ignore anything else that individual has to say about their supposed marvelous new source of energy. In other words, an effective BS filter.

The mere fact of "well, at least it doesn't have something negative about it on Wikipedia" acts as a "first-line of defense" BS filter that lets one at least know which sites are so bad (in terms of being factually wrong) that they don't even merit further looking at.

All much better stated that how I responded!

[Mountaineer]

Based upon the first sentence, would you read the rest of the wikipedia article?

The electron (e− or β−) is a subatomic particle with a negative one elementary electric charge.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

[vnatale]

Based upon the first sentence, would you read the rest of the wikipedia article?

The electron (e− or β−) is a subatomic particle with a negative one elementary electric charge.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

In this case I was uncharacteristically referring to the figurative and NOT the literal!

Negative Wikipedia entries rarely have the actual word negative in them.

But you already knew all of that.

[Mountaineer]

Based upon the first sentence, would you read the rest of the wikipedia article?

The electron (e− or β−) is a subatomic particle with a negative one elementary electric charge.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

In this case I was uncharacteristically referring to the figurative and NOT the literal!

Negative Wikipedia entries rarely have the actual word negative in them.

But you already knew all of that.

.

Vinny, you are a good sport, and probably excellent at softball.

.

[vnatale]

Based upon the first sentence, would you read the rest of the wikipedia article?

The electron (e− or β−) is a subatomic particle with a negative one elementary electric charge.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

In this case I was uncharacteristically referring to the figurative and NOT the literal!

Negative Wikipedia entries rarely have the actual word negative in them.

But you already knew all of that.

.

Vinny, you are a good sport, and probably excellent at softball.

.

I am an excellent coach but not a good player. That is why I have to put these teams together so I can be on a team!