Gyroscopic Investing

Gumby wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Gumby wrote: Your failure to properly discuss broad money is one of the main reasons your arguments aren't very convincing. That and the fact that you lack data to support what you are saying. Sorry man.

Yes, that and the use of logic and reason. I know my crimes.

Have you seen Browne's chart on the movies and inflation? He proves it right then and there. No thought required.

If you simply took five minutes to apply your elementary school "logic and reason" to the broad money supply, you'd see that QE is pretty much a non-event.

It is elementary you are right about that.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: I'm good. You're right. You've proven to me that QE doesn't affect the money supply.

I was wrong all along. I mean even Austrians will admit this sometimes if the argument sounds a certain way.

Did I offend?  Certainly didn't mean to.

That comment about Austrians probably sounded more insulting than I meant it to.

I do believe that they often comment along the lines of FDIC making our deposits "artificially safe," and therefore lending "artificially cheap."

No offense it just seemed like there were about 4-5 new topics introduced and I just get tired trying to bring it back. It's cool. No big deal.

Well QE is only as artificial demand as treasury bonds are artificial supply of interest-paying asset, or that the FDIC is artificial protection on deposits.  It's all artificial.  That's the whole point we're trying to make... You can't take one piece of the whole process and make it more than it is.  The artificiality of the whole system is backed by the productivity of the US and the ability for the government to continue to facilitate economic growth.

QE isn't any more artificial demand for treasuries than MRE's during WWII are artificial supply of food.  It exists within a framework where if you try to take one piece out and pretend the rest isn't artificial, you've already lost.

So this is why we try to describe private credit and the relationship between the fed and member banks.  This is why we try to show you how economic indicators are NOT indicating that there is a grossly unnatural nature to the interest rate environment.

So it may seem like we're bringing up new subjects, but when you say QE is "printing money" and we show you it's really not, and then you say QE is artificially lowering rates when all indicators say it's not and the fed is acting well-within its mandate and would pull back QE if inflation or employment figures start to rise to bring rates back up again, even though I seriously have my doubts as to the effect the actual act of QE or "monetizing" has on interest rates.  So much is expectation-based now that the fed could probably will rates to whatever it said it wanted them to be at simply because the market knows if it doesn't comply the fed will get the rates there by playing in the bond market.

One guess was for Dec.

Who is the guru?!?!?!?

Kshartle wrote: One guess was for Dec.

Who is the guru?!?!?!?

I bet it was Ben Bernanke himself.  He posts on internet message boards, right?

edsanville wrote:

Kshartle wrote: One guess was for Dec.

Who is the guru?!?!?!?

I bet it was Ben Bernanke himself.  He posts on internet message boards, right?

He's more of a face-to-face guy:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/drunke ... hoo,21059/