What I think is an interesting take on Janet Yellen

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
It's not hard to hit decent employment numbers when you have everyone else fleeing the country like so:
That certainly does screw with the numbers quite a bit.


Trying to hold up Greece's non-recovery as some something other than a failure of austerity is ridiculous
And when did Greece ever attempt austerity? They're still spending way more than they collect. They have not had a balanced budget since the crash.
a2macro-eu-greece3.png

The interest rates on their debt would go way down if they actually tried to pay some of it. Sticking with jaw dropping deficit spending shows the world that they really have no intention of paying that money back. No sane person would lend money to a government that doesn't plan on paying its debts.

This is what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass tell the world that you're going to welch on your debts.
8db5f201c24657d9c3ed5105d52a2fa3.png


edit
I'd like to add that this graph of interest rates is why Austrian economists are very concerned about the US national debt. Look how quickly the situation went from ok to catastrophic. All Greece did was tell the world that they would stick with things like universal healthcare and old age pension rather than pay down the debt. All it took was 3 years to go from less than 4% to more than 100%. Healthcare and pension are great programs that I strongly support, but let's get serious. If the country is about to implode, everyone should step up and do what is best for their country.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,021
55,485
136
That certainly does screw with the numbers quite a bit.

And when did Greece ever attempt austerity? They're still spending way more than they collect. They have not had a balanced budget since the crash.
a2macro-eu-greece3.png

The interest rates on their debt would go way down if they actually tried to pay some of it. Sticking with jaw dropping deficit spending shows the world that they really have no intention of paying that money back. No sane person would lend money to a government that doesn't plan on paying its debts.

Austerity is not defined as a balanced budget, austerity is taking measures to reduce or eliminate budget deficits. Considering that Greece has gone from a yearly deficit of nearly 16% of GDP to a projection of 4.1% for 2013 according to OECD.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/government-deficit_gov-dfct-table-en

Even more notable is that this contraction in deficit as a % of GDP has taken place in an economy that has been shrinking at a colossal rate due to the negative economic effects of austerity. That's of course one of the big problems with cutting spending in a depression, your economy shrinks along with your spending making austerity self defeating.

This is what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass tell the world that you're going to welch on your debts.
8db5f201c24657d9c3ed5105d52a2fa3.png


edit
I'd like to add that this graph of interest rates is why Austrian economists are very concerned about the US national debt. Look how quickly the situation went from ok to catastrophic. All Greece did was tell the world that they would stick with things like universal healthcare and old age pension rather than pay down the debt. All it took was 3 years to go from less than 4% to more than 100%. Healthcare and pension are great programs that I strongly support, but let's get serious. If the country is about to implode, everyone should step up and do what is best for their country.

Austrian economics has been about as thoroughly discredited by this financial crisis as an economic philosophy can be. Basically every one of Austrian economics' predictions about what should happen in the face of large government deficits has been not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong. It's simply no longer a credible school of economic thought.

Also, comparing debts of a country that does not control the currency its debt is issued in as compared to a country that does is foolish. If you look at the correlation between borrowing costs and debt/GDP ratio you will find that basically none exists.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
The same Peter Schiff that has made wrong prediction after wrong prediction after the financial crisis? Hyperinflation? Wrong. Price of gold? Wrong. Treasury prices? Wrong. Decoupling from China? Wrong.

I could go on and on.
Let's examine these one at a time.

1: Hyperinflation
Our currency is still heading in this direction, but it's not too late to stop. You can already see some of this inflation by looking at the prices of commodities.

Soy:
USA-soy-history-price.jpg


Copper:
Copper_Price_History_USD.png


Brent Crude:
Crude_oil_prices_in_dollar_and_euro.png



2: Gold - I'm not sure how to respond to this. Gold went parabolic after the crash, just as Peter Schiff and Ron Paul said it would. They said there would be a mad rush to get gold, and that too turned out to be correct.

Here's Russia's gold supply:
russia-s-central-bank-gold-holdings-tonnes-_chart.png


China:
China-Gold-21.jpg


Central banks:
net-gold-purchases-by-central-banks-tonnes-_chart.png


India restricts gold imports as people are trying to hedge against inflation.
France bans gold delivery, making it extremely hard to buy gold.

Despite declining prices of paper gold, which are determined by futures contracts,there is a shortage of physical gold.

3: Treasury prices
Schiff was 100% right on this. In turn, the fed started to monetize debt in order to keep interest rates artificially low. More than 60% of US treasuries are purchased by the fed. Even mentioning the word "taper" causes bond prices to go down and interest rates to go up.



Let's compare that to the record of Janet Yellen who has made right prediction after right prediction after the financial crisis:

http://graphics.wsj.com/fed-predictions/#c[]=Janet+Yellen&c[]=Charles+Plosser&d=0
Did you actually read her predictions? Most of them are wrong. Not just a little wrong, but very wrong.

"I expect core inflation will dip to about 1 percent over the next year and remain below 2 percent for several years.""
Yep, just as those graphs above show that the prices of copper, food, and other commodities only rose 1-2%. :rolleyes:

"I expect the recession will end sometime later [in 2009]. "
And that's why the labor participation rate has been steadily declining since 2008 :rolleyes:
And 63% of Americans say we are still in recession (2012). Her statements show how disconnected from reality she is. "What recession? All of my friends at the country club were able to buy new private jets!"

"I expect the pace of the recovery will be frustratingly slow...History also teaches us that it often takes a long time to recover from downturns caused by financial crises"
What an awesome prediction! She said the recovery would take a really long time, which actually contradicts her statement that the recession would end in 2009. Did she also predict that the price of oil could possibly go up or maybe down?



This has already been debunked by other posters. The most accurate measure of economic recovery is how quickly a country grows to surpass its pre-crisis GDP.
In that case, why can't we just print 10 trillion in QE then call it a day? The recession would be over in 5 minutes.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Let's examine these one at a time.

1: Hyperinflation
Our currency is still heading in this direction, but it's not too late to stop. You can already see some of this inflation by looking at the prices of commodities.

Soy:
USA-soy-history-price.jpg


Copper:
Copper_Price_History_USD.png


Brent Crude:
Crude_oil_prices_in_dollar_and_euro.png



2: Gold - I'm not sure how to respond to this. Gold went parabolic after the crash, just as Peter Schiff and Ron Paul said it would. They said there would be a mad rush to get gold, and that too turned out to be correct.

Here's Russia's gold supply:
russia-s-central-bank-gold-holdings-tonnes-_chart.png


China:
China-Gold-21.jpg


Central banks:
net-gold-purchases-by-central-banks-tonnes-_chart.png


India restricts gold imports as people are trying to hedge against inflation.
France bans gold delivery, making it extremely hard to buy gold.

Despite declining prices of paper gold, which are determined by futures contracts,there is a shortage of physical gold.

3: Treasury prices
Schiff was 100% right on this. In turn, the fed started to monetize debt in order to keep interest rates artificially low. More than 60% of US treasuries are purchased by the fed. Even mentioning the word "taper" causes bond prices to go down and interest rates to go up.




Did you actually read her predictions? Most of them are wrong. Not just a little wrong, but very wrong.

"I expect core inflation will dip to about 1 percent over the next year and remain below 2 percent for several years.""
Yep, just as those graphs above show that the prices of copper, food, and other commodities only rose 1-2%. :rolleyes:

"I expect the recession will end sometime later [in 2009]. "
And that's why the labor participation rate has been steadily declining since 2008 :rolleyes:
And 63% of Americans say we are still in recession (2012). Her statements show how disconnected from reality she is. "What recession? All of my friends at the country club were able to buy new private jets!"

"I expect the pace of the recovery will be frustratingly slow...History also teaches us that it often takes a long time to recover from downturns caused by financial crises"
What an awesome prediction! She said the recovery would take a really long time, which actually contradicts her statement that the recession would end in 2009. Did she also predict that the price of oil could possibly go up or maybe down?




In that case, why can't we just print 10 trillion in QE then call it a day? The recession would be over in 5 minutes.

Japan has been doing QE for over two decades now and inflation is nowhere in sight in that country. Deflation is as entrenched as ever. The only sign is the ridiculous amount of debt they have accumulated (well over 250% of GDP). So, no, I don't think QE will lead to hyperinflation as feared.

Again, the price of commodities have more to do with China than QE. They are goods that are easily traded across borders and items like soya and copper are white-hot in China.
 
Last edited:

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Also, comparing debts of a country that does not control the currency its debt is issued in as compared to a country that does is foolish. If you look at the correlation between borrowing costs and debt/GDP ratio you will find that basically none exists.

Do you not see the irony here? You said Peter Schiff was wrong when he said the US would eventually have hyperinflation, and here you are advocating hyperinflation. Are you trying to prove him right? It would be best if we tried to prove peter wrong by preventing the country from slamming head first into a brick wall. You're saying we won't default because we can print money, which is technically true, but try to remember what inflation does to interest rates. People buying bonds want a real return. Let's start with a number like 3% real return and start with 0% inflation. Instead of austerity, we just print the extra 3%. Now that inflation is 3% and investors still demand 3% on top of that, the interest rate is now 6%. We pay that by printing up to 6% inflation. Now the investors will only buy bonds at 9%. So we start printing to get 9% inflation. So interest rates go up to 12%, so we.... and it goes on like this.

Forget about theoretical stuff and just think about this from your own point of view. If the US was trying to print its way out of debt, would you personally buy US treasuries? Of course not. Why would you buy something that has a negative real interest rate? That doesn't make any sense. There are more than 100 countries in the world, and at least some of them will give a better return. You could buy bonds from Germany, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, or you can corporate bonds. With so many choices, why would someone buy US debt that will be paid back with a bunch of worthless money?
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
I'd like to add that this graph of interest rates is why Austrian economists are very concerned about the US national debt... If the country is about to implode, everyone should step up and do what is best for their country.

The US is not Greece.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/30/the-united-states-is-not-greece/
http://www.thenation.com/article/162671/why-we-arent-greece
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ates-will-never-ever-turn-into-greece/273748/
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Japan has been doing QE for over two decades now and inflation is nowhere in sight in that country.
I'm not very familiar with Japan. Can you give some details of what they've been doing?

Deflation is as entrenched as ever.
It doesn't seem to be hurting Japan. They're still head and shoulders above the US when it comes to median wealth.
http://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2012/07/us-trails-at-least-15-oecd-countries-in.html
In addition to having more money than us, they also have better stuff. Even their toilets look like they're from the future.


The only sign is the ridiculous amount of debt they have accumulated (well over 250% of GDP). So, no, I don't think QE will lead to hyperinflation as feared.
This is a common misconception. Japan is actually the world's largest creditor nation for more than 20 consecutive years. Japan is that guy whose debt obligations are 10x yearly income, but he also happens to be sitting on a pile of money worth 20x his yearly income. In contrast, USA is that deadbeat who promises he'll get a job next week.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
I'm not very familiar with Japan. Can you give some details of what they've been doing?


It doesn't seem to be hurting Japan. They're still head and shoulders above the US when it comes to median wealth.
http://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2012/07/us-trails-at-least-15-oecd-countries-in.html
In addition to having more money than us, they also have better stuff. Even their toilets look like they're from the future.



This is a common misconception. Japan is actually the world's largest creditor nation for more than 20 consecutive years. Japan is that guy whose debt obligations are 10x yearly income, but he also happens to be sitting on a pile of money worth 20x his yearly income. In contrast, USA is that deadbeat who promises he'll get a job next week.

There is a shit-ton of literature regarding Japan's "lost decades". Also, I think you're confusing creditor nation with debt. They are not the same. The Japanese economy, until Fukushima, was a net creditor. However, since then, they've had to shut down their nuclear reactors and import energy, which means that more money leaves the country than comes in. The United States buys more stuff from abroad than we sell. But, thanks to the discovery of massive amounts of gas, our net buying is decreasing.

But what I've described above have to do with the respective economies of the United States and Japan. Government spending tells another story and both countries are huge borrowers. Like I said before, Japan has printed a lot of money to get its economy going again. But, in the fiat system, the government cannot just print money and give it to itself. It has to give it to banks. However, since banks do not see much to invest in Japan, they just give it to the Japanese government. Same thing with the Japanese people. That is why the Japanese government, at many times in the past 20 years, has had negative yields where people were basically paying the government to lend it money. The United States is a heavy borrower and it's yields, while low, are not negative. The reason for Japan's negative yield is because of it's creditor status and the fact that it is borrowing mainly from its own people whereas the reason for America's low yield is because it is the world's reserve currency and the sole superpower.

There was a period in 1995 when Japan tried some austerity by cutting spending and raising taxes to cut the increasing debt. It was a disaster and they had to reverse course.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,021
55,485
136
Do you not see the irony here? You said Peter Schiff was wrong when he said the US would eventually have hyperinflation, and here you are advocating hyperinflation. Are you trying to prove him right? It would be best if we tried to prove peter wrong by preventing the country from slamming head first into a brick wall. You're saying we won't default because we can print money, which is technically true, but try to remember what inflation does to interest rates. People buying bonds want a real return. Let's start with a number like 3% real return and start with 0% inflation. Instead of austerity, we just print the extra 3%. Now that inflation is 3% and investors still demand 3% on top of that, the interest rate is now 6%. We pay that by printing up to 6% inflation. Now the investors will only buy bonds at 9%. So we start printing to get 9% inflation. So interest rates go up to 12%, so we.... and it goes on like this.

I'm not advocating hyperinflation, and my policy positions have nothing to do with Peter Schiff's well documented wrongness throughout the financial crisis.

The US can, and has printed large amounts of new money since 2008 (the monetary base has gone up approximately 300% over the last five years). There has been little to no inflation to be seen, however. Additionally, your ideas as to what investors demand and what way the market will move have actually been empirically disproven over the last few years. You realize that US treasuries at certain times have been paying NEGATIVE interest in inflation adjusted terms, right? ie: Investors have been PAYING the US to lend the government their money.

So I'm just saying that your idea as to how inflation and bond yields track is directly disproven by recent historical fact. I know that Austrian economics says that we should be seeing a lot of inflation, etc, but it turns out that Austrian economics was just wrong.

Forget about theoretical stuff and just think about this from your own point of view. If the US was trying to print its way out of debt, would you personally buy US treasuries? Of course not. Why would you buy something that has a negative real interest rate? That doesn't make any sense. There are more than 100 countries in the world, and at least some of them will give a better return. You could buy bonds from Germany, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, or you can corporate bonds. With so many choices, why would someone buy US debt that will be paid back with a bunch of worthless money?

As mentioned above not only would people buy things with negative real interest rates, they DO. In fact, the entire point of QE is to stoke some inflation as well as drive people out of US bonds into other investments by lowering the yield. That's literally the goal of the fed here, but still it isn't enough.

It's sad that they have had to resort to QE at all considering the fact that more responsible fiscal policy with more deficit spending would be far more effective. Unfortunately Congress is paralyzed and is unable to do this right now.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
I'm not very familiar with Japan. Can you give some details of what they've been doing?


It doesn't seem to be hurting Japan. They're still head and shoulders above the US when it comes to median wealth.
http://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2012/07/us-trails-at-least-15-oecd-countries-in.html
In addition to having more money than us, they also have better stuff. Even their toilets look like they're from the future.



This is a common misconception. Japan is actually the world's largest creditor nation for more than 20 consecutive years. Japan is that guy whose debt obligations are 10x yearly income, but he also happens to be sitting on a pile of money worth 20x his yearly income. In contrast, USA is that deadbeat who promises he'll get a job next week.

Yet Japan is on the decline. They have propped themselves up by raising barriers to trade but keeping the Yen low. They did this for a long time and then got assraped by US assets that they thought they were buying cheap. Why did they have to buy those assets? Because they had huge trade surpluses and had to put the USD somewhere.

Sounds familiar, eh?

Even worse is that Japan never really floated their paper externally. When more of their retirement generation spends they will be in huge trouble.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Let's examine these one at a time.

1: Hyperinflation
Our currency is still heading in this direction, but it's not too late to stop. You can already see some of this inflation by looking at the prices of commodities.

Soy:
USA-soy-history-price.jpg


Copper:
Copper_Price_History_USD.png


Brent Crude:
Crude_oil_prices_in_dollar_and_euro.png

How much of those commodity increases are due to exogenous factors other than direct monetary inflation. Hint - all of it.

2: Gold - I'm not sure how to respond to this. Gold went parabolic after the crash, just as Peter Schiff and Ron Paul said it would. They said there would be a mad rush to get gold, and that too turned out to be correct.

Here's Russia's gold supply:
russia-s-central-bank-gold-holdings-tonnes-_chart.png


China:
China-Gold-21.jpg


Central banks:
net-gold-purchases-by-central-banks-tonnes-_chart.png


India restricts gold imports as people are trying to hedge against inflation.
France bans gold delivery, making it extremely hard to buy gold.

Despite declining prices of paper gold, which are determined by futures contracts,there is a shortage of physical gold.

Schiff and Paul didn't predict fuck all. They kept the same predictions out there for decades and made them ambiguous. It just happened that the broken clock was right.

And a huge portion of gold's increase is due to more exogenous factors, including a collapse in India, a slow-mo collapse in China, and gold ETFs.

3: Treasury prices
Schiff was 100% right on this. In turn, the fed started to monetize debt in order to keep interest rates artificially low. More than 60% of US treasuries are purchased by the fed. Even mentioning the word "taper" causes bond prices to go down and interest rates to go up.

Did you actually read her predictions? Most of them are wrong. Not just a little wrong, but very wrong.

"I expect core inflation will dip to about 1 percent over the next year and remain below 2 percent for several years.""
Yep, just as those graphs above show that the prices of copper, food, and other commodities only rose 1-2%. :rolleyes:

"I expect the recession will end sometime later [in 2009]. "
And that's why the labor participation rate has been steadily declining since 2008 :rolleyes:
And 63% of Americans say we are still in recession (2012). Her statements show how disconnected from reality she is. "What recession? All of my friends at the country club were able to buy new private jets!"

"I expect the pace of the recovery will be frustratingly slow...History also teaches us that it often takes a long time to recover from downturns caused by financial crises"
What an awesome prediction! She said the recovery would take a really long time, which actually contradicts her statement that the recession would end in 2009. Did she also predict that the price of oil could possibly go up or maybe down?




In that case, why can't we just print 10 trillion in QE then call it a day? The recession would be over in 5 minutes.

Where is Schiff's prediction on Treasuries? Where did he predict China would have to hold them?

Schiff hasn't predicted anything correctly, on time. He has been a Johnny Come Lately to everything. What were his returns over the last 10 years? Did he beat his benchmark? Did he beat his peer group? From what I saw before, both of those Q's were no, he hasn't beat his benchmark or peer group consistently.

LOL @ Predicting the housing bubble in 2006. Wow, I was predicting it in 2004.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Yet Japan is on the decline. They have propped themselves up by raising barriers to trade but keeping the Yen low. They did this for a long time and then got assraped by US assets that they thought they were buying cheap. Why did they have to buy those assets? Because they had huge trade surpluses and had to put the USD somewhere.

Sounds familiar, eh?

Even worse is that Japan never really floated their paper externally. When more of their retirement generation spends they will be in huge trouble.

The US assets were cheap (to the Japanese buying them). Also, they did float their currency after the 1985 Plaza Accord (with periodic interference). When their currency skyrocketed it was the beginning of the end, something they are still living with today.

EDIT: I was wrong. It was not a float but a re-pegging of the respective currencies to make the dollar weak and the other currencies stronger.
 
Last edited:

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Do you not see the irony here? You said Peter Schiff was wrong when he said the US would eventually have hyperinflation, and here you are advocating hyperinflation. Are you trying to prove him right? It would be best if we tried to prove peter wrong by preventing the country from slamming head first into a brick wall. You're saying we won't default because we can print money, which is technically true, but try to remember what inflation does to interest rates. People buying bonds want a real return. Let's start with a number like 3% real return and start with 0% inflation. Instead of austerity, we just print the extra 3%. Now that inflation is 3% and investors still demand 3% on top of that, the interest rate is now 6%. We pay that by printing up to 6% inflation. Now the investors will only buy bonds at 9%. So we start printing to get 9% inflation. So interest rates go up to 12%, so we.... and it goes on like this.

Forget about theoretical stuff and just think about this from your own point of view. If the US was trying to print its way out of debt, would you personally buy US treasuries? Of course not. Why would you buy something that has a negative real interest rate? That doesn't make any sense. There are more than 100 countries in the world, and at least some of them will give a better return. You could buy bonds from Germany, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, or you can corporate bonds. With so many choices, why would someone buy US debt that will be paid back with a bunch of worthless money?

You don't think others have this same problem? There isn't a single country on the planet that has deep financial markets that isn't doing some form of QE or another same maybe Germany and even know the ECB is talking about doing it.

There is nowhere to go.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,021
55,485
136
Let's examine these one at a time.

1: Hyperinflation
Our currency is still heading in this direction, but it's not too late to stop. You can already see some of this inflation by looking at the prices of commodities.

Sorry, but inflation has a pretty specific meaning. Increase in the price of commodities while overall national inflation stays dangerously low is by no possible stretch of the imagination 'hyperinflation'. Schiff was clearly, unambiguously wrong on this. There is no way out of it.

Also, you can "already" see the results? QE has been going on for about half a decade now. When can we expect this hyperinflation?

2: Gold - I'm not sure how to respond to this. Gold went parabolic after the crash, just as Peter Schiff and Ron Paul said it would. They said there would be a mad rush to get gold, and that too turned out to be correct.

Here's Russia's gold supply:

China:


Central banks:

India restricts gold imports as people are trying to hedge against inflation.
France bans gold delivery, making it extremely hard to buy gold.

Despite declining prices of paper gold, which are determined by futures contracts,there is a shortage of physical gold.

No, Peter Schiff predicted that gold would hit $5,000. Not only has it come nowhere even remotely close to that number, but he keeps predicting it as gold loses approximately a third of its value over the last year.

gold_price_weekly_25_october_2013.gif


Does that look like gold increasing in price or $5,000 an ounce to you? Again, he is utterly, indisputably wrong.

3: Treasury prices
Schiff was 100% right on this. In turn, the fed started to monetize debt in order to keep interest rates artificially low. More than 60% of US treasuries are purchased by the fed. Even mentioning the word "taper" causes bond prices to go down and interest rates to go up.

I feel like I'm in bizarro world here. Schiff once again made very concrete predictions about a collapse in treasuries that of course, yet again, never happened. Saying he is right when he is literally on the record predicting things that didn't happen is nuts.

There's no way around this.

Did you actually read her predictions? Most of them are wrong. Not just a little wrong, but very wrong.

"I expect core inflation will dip to about 1 percent over the next year and remain below 2 percent for several years.""
Yep, just as those graphs above show that the prices of copper, food, and other commodities only rose 1-2%. :rolleyes:

I did read her predictions as well as the article containing that evaluation. Her prediction on inflation is basically spot on. Once again, specific commodity prices ~= inflation. She knocked that one out of the park.

"I expect the recession will end sometime later [in 2009]. "
And that's why the labor participation rate has been steadily declining since 2008 :rolleyes:
And 63% of Americans say we are still in recession (2012). Her statements show how disconnected from reality she is. "What recession? All of my friends at the country club were able to buy new private jets!"

Again, words have meanings. The recession ended by its economics definition in June of 2009. Once again, her prediction was spot on.

"I expect the pace of the recovery will be frustratingly slow...History also teaches us that it often takes a long time to recover from downturns caused by financial crises"
What an awesome prediction! She said the recovery would take a really long time, which actually contradicts her statement that the recession would end in 2009. Did she also predict that the price of oil could possibly go up or maybe down?

No, the end of a recession and a slow recovery after it are in no way contradictory. Once again she knocked this prediction out of the park. It was 100% correct. She not only called the end of the recession but the economic conditions afterwards. For economics that's about as good as it gets.

This is all very strange to me. This entire post you have concrete evidence of people subscribing to Austrian economics getting things completely wrong, but you declare them right due to things unrelated to their predictions. Then you describe the predictions by Yellen that are 100% empirically verifiably accurate and call them wrong. Seriously, this line of argument makes no sense.

I feel like you need to go check the definitions of the things we are discussing because there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding going on here.

In that case, why can't we just print 10 trillion in QE then call it a day? The recession would be over in 5 minutes.

Because QE isn't without risks, asset markets don't work that way, etc, etc.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
You don't think others have this same problem? There isn't a single country on the planet that has deep financial markets that isn't doing some form of QE or another same maybe Germany and even know the ECB is talking about doing it.

There is nowhere to go.

I agree that this is a huge problem right now. The smart money knows where to invest, but most people are shooting in the dark. Lots of government bonds have negative real interest rates, and this forces a lot of retirement accounts into the stock market to seek shelter from inflation. This is why we see ridiculous things like PE ratios of 400 or Tesla stock going up to $190 (but has since declined 36%, crashing like I predicted in my death watch thread). The entire market is driven by speculation and the fed's money printing, and it's nothing short of irresponsible.

Also, you can "already" see the results? QE has been going on for about half a decade now. When can we expect this hyperinflation?
After a combination of things happen.
1 - The US dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency, and
2 - baby boomers start aging.

A quick google search says hyperinflation's technical definition is when monthly inflation is greater than 50%. Increasing our total money supply by 3-4x over several years would not be enough to cause hyperinflation, especially when more than half of our money is outside of the country. On the other hand, America's unfunded liabilities are more than 123 trillion. Will the world lend us 123 trillion US dollars? Probably not. As seen in places like Greece, France, and Detroit, it's also reasonable to assume that democracy would never allow austerity to happen. This means we'll end up printing 123 trillion dollars. That might cause inflation.

I did read her predictions as well as the article containing that evaluation. Her prediction on inflation is basically spot on. Once again, specific commodity prices ~= inflation. She knocked that one out of the park.
Doesn't it strike you as odd when the government is the only one who thinks inflation is 1-2%? Lots of people have written about this issue.
I'm just posting these in order they appear on google:
Alternative inflation charts
If there's no inflation, why are prices up so much?
Is America hiding its true inflation rate?
Is the government lying about inflation?

That last one is interesting because it explains the concept of chained CPI. Chained CPI is the idea that increasing prices will have no effect on your budget because your behavior will change based on the price. Example: suppose gasoline goes up to $20/gallon, so you sell your car and buy a bicycle. Chained CPI would count that as deflation because your cost actually went down as a result of selling your car. It's sort of like how shooting yourself is a cure for cancer. The cancer is no longer a threat because the bullet kills you.
/government logic
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,021
55,485
136
After a combination of things happen.
1 - The US dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency, and
2 - baby boomers start aging.

A quick google search says hyperinflation's technical definition is when monthly inflation is greater than 50%. Increasing our total money supply by 3-4x over several years would not be enough to cause hyperinflation, especially when more than half of our money is outside of the country. On the other hand, America's unfunded liabilities are more than 123 trillion. Will the world lend us 123 trillion US dollars? Probably not. As seen in places like Greece, France, and Detroit, it's also reasonable to assume that democracy would never allow austerity to happen. This means we'll end up printing 123 trillion dollars. That might cause inflation.

Lots of things to cover here.

First, I noticed that you've stopped trying to argue that Peter Schiff's predictions were right and/or that Janet Yellen's predictions were wrong. I think I provided pretty conclusive evidence for both Schiff's recurring wrongness and how your arguments that Yellen was incorrect were based on bad definitions. Can we agree on this?

Second, your arguments about inflation don't make much sense. Regardless of the exact amount the money supply must increase in order to trigger hyperinflation as defined, a tripling of the monetary base has occurred in an environment that has seen lower than average inflation. It's not like we're talking about a prediction of 300% inflation where we only got 100% inflation, we're talking about a prediction that has been the OPPOSITE of what has happened. It's wrongness on a very fundamental, conceptual level.

Third, the whole $123 trillion in unfunded liabilities (or whatever number, the exact figure changes depending on what right wing source you're looking at) is complete bullshit. That figure is total US government liabilities basically in perpetuity, or at least out 75 years or so. (your website conveniently omits the time frame).

If we assume that it's based on the 75 year time frame that we normally see then simple GDP growth should tell you how silly this figure is. Assuming an average of 2% GDP growth per year out 75 years gives us an ANNUAL GDP of about $70 trillion by the 75 year mark. If you would then argue that projecting GDP out over nearly a century is a fool's errand, I would say that projecting liabilities out 75 years is every bit as dumb.

Long story short, the number is bullshit. Predicting hyperinflation due to 75 year liability figures is bullshit. End of story.

Doesn't it strike you as odd when the government is the only one who thinks inflation is 1-2%? Lots of people have written about this issue.
I'm just posting these in order they appear on google:
Alternative inflation charts
If there's no inflation, why are prices up so much?
Is America hiding its true inflation rate?
Is the government lying about inflation?

The government is not the only one that thinks inflation is at that level. In fact, as previously mentioned, scientifically rigorous, transparently calculated independent estimates like the billion prices project basically confirm the US government's inflation calculations. What you have linked is a BS conspiracy site and a couple of editorial pieces.

It's basically asking whether or not you believe emotion (I just KNOW inflation must be high) or science. Here's a chart of BPP inflation calculations over BLS ones:

MIT-billion-prices-monthly.gif


If you would like a more thorough demolition of shadowstats' nonsense read the entire article:
http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Regression-to-Trend-Aternate-CPI.php

That last one is interesting because it explains the concept of chained CPI. Chained CPI is the idea that increasing prices will have no effect on your budget because your behavior will change based on the price. Example: suppose gasoline goes up to $20/gallon, so you sell your car and buy a bicycle. Chained CPI would count that as deflation because your cost actually went down as a result of selling your car. It's sort of like how shooting yourself is a cure for cancer. The cancer is no longer a threat because the bullet kills you.
/government logic

Chained CPI is only one of many, many inflation indexes that BLS puts out. They put out so many of them for the explicit purpose of giving people multiple ways of looking at the situation depending on what is most representative of the problem they are attempting to understand.

I feel like you're getting some really bad information from the websites that you visit. The link to shadowstats is particularly telling.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Japan has been doing QE for over two decades now and inflation is nowhere in sight in that country. Deflation is as entrenched as ever. The only sign is the ridiculous amount of debt they have accumulated (well over 250% of GDP). So, no, I don't think QE will lead to hyperinflation as feared.

Again, the price of commodities have more to do with China than QE. They are goods that are easily traded across borders and items like soya and copper are white-hot in China.
I think you need to recheck your facts.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Here's an interesting article about QE...essentially good short-term, bad long-term.

http://www.businessinsider.com/koo-says-no-one-can-refute-the-qe-trap-2013-10

RICHARD KOO: I Can't Find Anyone To Refute My Argument That America Is In A 'QE Trap'

The Federal Reserve shocked market participants in September with its decision to refrain from tapering quantitative easing, as many felt that the central bank had signaled the move at its June meeting.

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke sparked a sharp rise in long-term interest rates at the June press conference by suggesting that tapering could happen later in the year.

The September decision raised questions among observers over whether talking about tapering ended up eventually precluding tapering, because the rise in long-term interest rates sparked by the signal weighed on the economy such that the Fed then felt it couldn't ease up on the bond buying it does under its QE program.

Richard Koo calls it the "QE trap," a concept he explained in a note following the September FOMC decision.

Koo has been meeting with clients and officials in the U.S., and he says he hasn't been able to find anyone to refute the theory that the U.S. economy is currently ensnared in the "QE trap."

screen%20shot%202013-10-23%20at%208.36.16%20am.png

"At the Fed I hoped to hear a refutation of the QE 'trap' argument presented in my last report and which I presented using Figure 1," writes Koo in a note to clients. "However, the official I met with was unable to say anything to ease my concerns."

The QE "trap" happens when the central bank has purchased long-term government bonds as part of quantitative easing. Initially, long-term interest rates fall much more than they would in a country without such a policy, which means the subsequent economic recovery comes sooner (t1). But as the economy picks up, long-term rates rise sharply as local bond market participants fear the central bank will have to mop up all the excess reserves by unloading its holdings of long-term bonds.

Demand then falls in interest rate sensitive sectors such as automobiles and housing, causing the economy to slow and forcing the central bank to relax its policy stance. The economy heads towards recovery again, but as market participants refocus on the possibility of the central bank absorbing excess reserves, long-term rates surge in a repetitive cycle I have dubbed the QE "trap."

In countries that do not engage in quantitative easing, meanwhile, the decline in long-term rates is more gradual, which delays the start of the recovery (t2). But since there is no need for the central bank to mop up large quantities of funds, everybody is no more relaxed once the recovery starts, and the rise in long-term rates is far more gradual. Once the economy starts to turn around, the pace of recovery is actually faster because interest rates are lower. This is illustrated in Figure 2.

screen%20shot%202013-10-23%20at%208.37.13%20am.png

In essence, Koo says the idea hasn't caught on yet.

"I sensed the Fed’s full attention is now devoted to the question of whether and when to 'taper' its purchases of longer-term Treasury securities, leaving officials little time to think about long-term costs and scenarios," he writes. "The same could be said for the market participants I met with in New York and Boston, where the typical response was 'we haven’t thought that far ahead' or 'it’s tomorrow’s problem.'"

Koo says one way to avoid the "QE trap" is for the Fed to come out and argue that QE never worked to begin with, thereby downplaying concerns over its withdrawal, but it's unclear whether this would be effective, and he admits that it would be "difficult to implement."

"Current chairman Ben Bernanke, who unveiled the policy of quantitative easing, appears to want to at least begin dismantling it before his term expires," writes Koo, "but the reluctant QE 'trap' threatens to weigh on the economy for several years via elevated long-term interest rates."
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Then he has no evidence.
Agree. I just thought it was an interesting theory. I don't know much about economics but there appears to me that there's a huge tug of war going on between QE and deflation...and deflation appears to be winning. I don't think we're going to see normal GDP growth for quite a while.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Agree. I just thought it was an interesting theory. I don't know much about economics but there appears to me that there's a huge tug of war going on between QE and deflation...and deflation appears to be winning. I don't think we're going to see normal GDP growth for quite a while.

As we've seen with Japan deflation is extremely difficult to defeat. Impossible, I would say. Why? Because this is just an economy trying to adjust. QE is just trying to stop the inevitable, like trying to move a mountain. The best way to deal with something like this is to adjust your economy for the new economy. If prices are meant to fall then restructure your labor market and/or economy. It's extremely painful and a terrible medicine to take but it's something that needs to be done. Wages will have to fall, whether or not people like it. If anything, QE can make things less hectic but it isn't a solution in and of itself.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,021
55,485
136
As we've seen with Japan deflation is extremely difficult to defeat. Impossible, I would say. Why? Because this is just an economy trying to adjust. QE is just trying to stop the inevitable, like trying to move a mountain. The best way to deal with something like this is to adjust your economy for the new economy. If prices are meant to fall then restructure your labor market and/or economy. It's extremely painful and a terrible medicine to take but it's something that needs to be done. Wages will have to fall, whether or not people like it. If anything, QE can make things less hectic but it isn't a solution in and of itself.

How do you reconcile that theory with the experience of the Great Depression? Additionally, why would internal devaluation be so important when countries generate the vast majority of their GDP internally?

There's no evidence that growth resumed once a country had deflated enough in the past. If anything, the evidence shows the opposite.