Europe's Pain Is America's Gain, Not Bane [View article]
"Americans are quite capable of producing and then consuming much of what it makes. It's one of the biggest reasons why the United States has such a robust economy."
Whoa! Talk about a lightining bolt of truth to punch holes in the whole "mercantile system" outlined in the birth of the Smithsonian world.
You mean you don't have to export to prosper? You mean I can run an account deficit but because the dollars are still out there that its not going to mean death?
Actually, you could be way over into import only territory, but if your knowledge about how to turn those resources into things that made your standard of living the highest in the world, then there is no reason to fret trade deficits. If your domestic industry could make things that no one else in the world could make, and couldn't afford to buy, then your local population benefits from the jobs or capital returns, and the currency that leaves the country comes back in the form of even more investment, because after all if no one else can produce like you can, then, where are they gonna go? They can't eat dollars after all, just like you can't eat gold.
The problem comes when your consumers so desire regulatory subsidies that subsidize their consumption (labor rules, product standards, welfare, union subsidies, etc) that the opportunity for return is great enough to offset the gov gun based notes that provide more safety but of course not as much yield.
So, China does less purchasing of US factory assets denominated in dollars and more purchasing of treas assets denominated in dollars. This drives down the cost of a gov whose basic policy is to pay people to be less productive, instead of driving down the cost of capital to people who would build factories and create new and better products. That scenario is the one the US is currently employing, and over time (decades and decades), austerity takes over (lower standards of living that what would otherwise have been possible).
When you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when you get exactly what you pay for.
"Sell your house ... yesterday," Gary Shilling tells Bloomberg. It will take 4 years, he says, to work off still-high inventories, during which time prices could fall another 20%. Turning to Facebook: "(It's) the end of the social media boom ... reminds me of Pets.com." [View news story]
"What will happen to housing prices when rates rise is that they'll be higher, as history has demonstrated conclusively for many, many decades"
Wouldn't that be because in the past the economic environment was better and rates would rise because the growth in economic opportunities was faster than the growth in economic opportunity killing fiscal and monetary policies.?Therefore, a growing economy creates the scenario where the demand for capital outstrips the supply (a good thing), thus interest rates go up in an environment where people are getting jobs that mean something. So they were willing to buy houses, and as such as rates went up so did home prices.
Also, in the past Fannie and Freddie were growing larger and larger as a percent of the mgt market since the mid 70s, so in this growth environment you also had subsidies creating additional buyers.
I can't see either of these two factors occuring again anytime soon. So what bothers me is that the recovery in housing could occur at an anemic pace for two more decades. So for me the further out the recovery, the worse it is.
I hope your position that the further away it is the better is wrong. Why do you say that, because I hope its not true.
I Don't Expect QE3, But I Expect LTRO3 Soon [View article]
EY
Yeah, but isn't that just semantics. What's the difference between the state owning something thus directing its use, and you owning something that the states still directs its use.
And think about what you are saying. If the people in the gov know what customers want from a quality standpoint or an employment standpoing, and they have to direct you to make things to those standards, then that means the people in the gov know more about what customers want than the business "owners".
Now think about that. People in gov know how to provide a product that everyone wants, but that no one will provide. Do you have any idea how much that information would be worth? If you knew how to make ipads for $100 instead of $600, at the same margins or better margins, would you just give that information to Apple? Better yet, if you really had that information, would you need gov guns to force Apple to take that information?
The idea that people in gov can run business better than business is just a fraud for subsidies for votes. Its a way for big business to write regulations to eliminat smaller competitors and the result is fewer choices and higher prices. How often do you see a new car company in the US? Are we getting more banks or fewer banks? Is the cost of education going up or down? Is healthcare costs going up or down?
Gold: The Fate That Awaits Once Fed Stimulus Ends [View article]
Indeed.
Military action is the ultimate manifestation of gov regulation. The grant to the gov by the people of the element of force is a dangerous thing, but just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it is not necessary. What it does mean is a series of preventive and detective controls are necessary to prevent that force from leaving its only useful purpose and venturing into its deleterious purpose.
When these controls are ignored for the sake of emotional platitudes, that the utter thinks will make them sound good, then the ultimate manifestations of gov regulation appear - namely torture and death. If guns could be used to create capital, we could unleash the military on the populace and the result would be stimulus for capital creation.
The same reasons you limit the force granted to the gov, as manifested in the military, are the same reasons gov regulators must be limited. They both have access to force. They must be limited via process (ie courts, presumption of innocence, and divided power). This is why the founders wanted a civilian police force, and the military would be for use against foreign threats. The European regulatory model against which they rebelled, used the military as the police.
Once gov is limited to its only logical role, what you will find is the need for military action (the ultimate manifestation of gov regulation without limits) fades drastically. You separate church and state for the same reasons you separate the economy and state. The separation precludes the ultimate manifestation of regulation - a resource wasting military. Religion is about economics too, and religion like economics can have no empirical evidence. They are both a risk assessment about the unkown.
Gold: The Fate That Awaits Once Fed Stimulus Ends [View article]
OK, here we go with the extremism and the tired old Somalia rant. Even Bastiat had to deal with this. He opposed gov subsidies for the "arts", and he was attacked for claiming he hated all art.
All right, lets play this game. I want you to wipe the froth from your mouth for a moment, and think hard about what I am going to ask you.
If the regulators determined your business was harming the environment, should the regulators be able to pull you and your family out into the street and shoot all of you?
If you say of course not, does that then mean you believe gov has no role in a society?
Perhaps you can see that without process, and limits on gov, gov becomes the oppressor. Here is another example of how the European regulatory environment framed their thinking.
Why Greece Won't Exit The European Union [View article]
Ironically, enlightened economics had its birth in Europe.
If the Greeks were to adopt the Dutch approach, they would really want to leave the Euro because then the Greeks would wind up subsidizing the other less productive members.
Why Greece Won't Exit The European Union [View article]
Not Austrian. I don't believe in a gold standard. Im a realist. They need to admit they were wrong, and then accommodate while they privatize. Leaders never admit they are wrong, and unions are too greedy to let them. Special interest is the ultimate manifestation of democracy. If they accommodate just to keep feeding special interest, all that's going to happen will be the creation of more worthless notes. It will be like Enron issuing more stock to expand their fraudulent business model.
Gold: The Fate That Awaits Once Fed Stimulus Ends [View article]
"and among the several States"
Why doesn't it say among individual citizens? It also matters as to what you think regulate means. It can be argued that regulate meant to make commerce "regular". That is to establish a free trade zone, wherein one state could set up trade barriers to favor business in that state over another. Which makes senses considering the experience of the founders with Europe's highly regulated economies (which is why they were rebelling).
In their minds were still fresh things which our troglodite gov education system has failed to teach.
Some time in Rothbard might help as well. The early regulatory history of the colonies is poorly understood. A thorough understanding really helps to put in context the mindset of the constitution.
But lets say, everything you said is true, and that the founders intended the give the national gov complete control over everyone's life. Just because they did this would not exempt them from higher law. Gov can't regulate an economy with regards to market outcomes. It can only regulate with regards to force and fraud. Any attempts to have gov price blindness subsititute for the natural's market price sensitivity, will end in austerity.
Commerce is not a voluntary activity. It is a necessary function for survival. Living alone on a deserted island means no commerce, and it means a real threat to survival. If you get sick or hurt, and there is no one with whom to trade for medical care, your chances of survival become extremely limited.
If it was the intention of the founders to give the gov control over your right to earn a living and survive, then they were idiots. But seeing as how this is what Europe was trying to do them, which caused them to engage in a rebellion with the world's superpower, it seems illogical that they would try and replicate the very thing they were risking their lives to escape.
Look, if you want to be a peasant go ahead, but like all tyrants that collapse into name calling in an attempt to quell dissent, I will resist any attempts you engage in to make me be a peasant with you.
So Far, 2012 Is Eerily Similar To 1987 [View article]
Interesting.
The FF rate in Oct 86 was 5.85. Notice the chart above and were the S&P was right before 1987. The FF rate rose all through the year until...you guessed it Oct of 1987 when it hit 7.29. Then it lowered until March of 88, when it hit 6.87.
Bottoming Process Or Bearish Acceleration? [View article]
http://bit.ly/KD2OK6
Europe's Pain Is America's Gain, Not Bane [View article]
Whoa! Talk about a lightining bolt of truth to punch holes in the whole "mercantile system" outlined in the birth of the Smithsonian world.
You mean you don't have to export to prosper? You mean I can run an account deficit but because the dollars are still out there that its not going to mean death?
Actually, you could be way over into import only territory, but if your knowledge about how to turn those resources into things that made your standard of living the highest in the world, then there is no reason to fret trade deficits. If your domestic industry could make things that no one else in the world could make, and couldn't afford to buy, then your local population benefits from the jobs or capital returns, and the currency that leaves the country comes back in the form of even more investment, because after all if no one else can produce like you can, then, where are they gonna go? They can't eat dollars after all, just like you can't eat gold.
The problem comes when your consumers so desire regulatory subsidies that subsidize their consumption (labor rules, product standards, welfare, union subsidies, etc) that the opportunity for return is great enough to offset the gov gun based notes that provide more safety but of course not as much yield.
So, China does less purchasing of US factory assets denominated in dollars and more purchasing of treas assets denominated in dollars. This drives down the cost of a gov whose basic policy is to pay people to be less productive, instead of driving down the cost of capital to people who would build factories and create new and better products. That scenario is the one the US is currently employing, and over time (decades and decades), austerity takes over (lower standards of living that what would otherwise have been possible).
When you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when you get exactly what you pay for.
"Sell your house ... yesterday," Gary Shilling tells Bloomberg. It will take 4 years, he says, to work off still-high inventories, during which time prices could fall another 20%. Turning to Facebook: "(It's) the end of the social media boom ... reminds me of Pets.com." [View news story]
Wouldn't that be because in the past the economic environment was better and rates would rise because the growth in economic opportunities was faster than the growth in economic opportunity killing fiscal and monetary policies.?Therefore, a growing economy creates the scenario where the demand for capital outstrips the supply (a good thing), thus interest rates go up in an environment where people are getting jobs that mean something. So they were willing to buy houses, and as such as rates went up so did home prices.
Also, in the past Fannie and Freddie were growing larger and larger as a percent of the mgt market since the mid 70s, so in this growth environment you also had subsidies creating additional buyers.
I can't see either of these two factors occuring again anytime soon. So what bothers me is that the recovery in housing could occur at an anemic pace for two more decades. So for me the further out the recovery, the worse it is.
I hope your position that the further away it is the better is wrong. Why do you say that, because I hope its not true.
Stability Of The European Union (13)? (Starts March 13, 2012) [View instapost]
I Don't Expect QE3, But I Expect LTRO3 Soon [View article]
Yeah, but isn't that just semantics. What's the difference between the state owning something thus directing its use, and you owning something that the states still directs its use.
And think about what you are saying. If the people in the gov know what customers want from a quality standpoint or an employment standpoing, and they have to direct you to make things to those standards, then that means the people in the gov know more about what customers want than the business "owners".
Now think about that. People in gov know how to provide a product that everyone wants, but that no one will provide. Do you have any idea how much that information would be worth? If you knew how to make ipads for $100 instead of $600, at the same margins or better margins, would you just give that information to Apple? Better yet, if you really had that information, would you need gov guns to force Apple to take that information?
The idea that people in gov can run business better than business is just a fraud for subsidies for votes. Its a way for big business to write regulations to eliminat smaller competitors and the result is fewer choices and higher prices. How often do you see a new car company in the US? Are we getting more banks or fewer banks? Is the cost of education going up or down? Is healthcare costs going up or down?
Socialism is just another word for looterism.
Gold: The Fate That Awaits Once Fed Stimulus Ends [View article]
Military action is the ultimate manifestation of gov regulation. The grant to the gov by the people of the element of force is a dangerous thing, but just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it is not necessary. What it does mean is a series of preventive and detective controls are necessary to prevent that force from leaving its only useful purpose and venturing into its deleterious purpose.
When these controls are ignored for the sake of emotional platitudes, that the utter thinks will make them sound good, then the ultimate manifestations of gov regulation appear - namely torture and death. If guns could be used to create capital, we could unleash the military on the populace and the result would be stimulus for capital creation.
The same reasons you limit the force granted to the gov, as manifested in the military, are the same reasons gov regulators must be limited. They both have access to force. They must be limited via process (ie courts, presumption of innocence, and divided power). This is why the founders wanted a civilian police force, and the military would be for use against foreign threats. The European regulatory model against which they rebelled, used the military as the police.
Once gov is limited to its only logical role, what you will find is the need for military action (the ultimate manifestation of gov regulation without limits) fades drastically. You separate church and state for the same reasons you separate the economy and state. The separation precludes the ultimate manifestation of regulation - a resource wasting military. Religion is about economics too, and religion like economics can have no empirical evidence. They are both a risk assessment about the unkown.
http://bit.ly/L1YZAx
So Far, 2012 Is Eerily Similar To 1987 [View article]
Gold: The Fate That Awaits Once Fed Stimulus Ends [View article]
All right, lets play this game. I want you to wipe the froth from your mouth for a moment, and think hard about what I am going to ask you.
If the regulators determined your business was harming the environment, should the regulators be able to pull you and your family out into the street and shoot all of you?
If you say of course not, does that then mean you believe gov has no role in a society?
Perhaps you can see that without process, and limits on gov, gov becomes the oppressor. Here is another example of how the European regulatory environment framed their thinking.
http://bit.ly/KjhpMz
Why Greece Won't Exit The European Union [View article]
If the Greeks were to adopt the Dutch approach, they would really want to leave the Euro because then the Greeks would wind up subsidizing the other less productive members.
http://bit.ly/Ie2QVX
Why Greece Won't Exit The European Union [View article]
To QE Or Not To QE, That Is The Question [View article]
To QE Or Not To QE, That Is The Question [View article]
Gold: The Fate That Awaits Once Fed Stimulus Ends [View article]
Why doesn't it say among individual citizens? It also matters as to what you think regulate means. It can be argued that regulate meant to make commerce "regular". That is to establish a free trade zone, wherein one state could set up trade barriers to favor business in that state over another. Which makes senses considering the experience of the founders with Europe's highly regulated economies (which is why they were rebelling).
In their minds were still fresh things which our troglodite gov education system has failed to teach.
http://bit.ly/LmDGpF
Some time in Rothbard might help as well. The early regulatory history of the colonies is poorly understood. A thorough understanding really helps to put in context the mindset of the constitution.
http://bit.ly/LmDGpF
But lets say, everything you said is true, and that the founders intended the give the national gov complete control over everyone's life. Just because they did this would not exempt them from higher law. Gov can't regulate an economy with regards to market outcomes. It can only regulate with regards to force and fraud. Any attempts to have gov price blindness subsititute for the natural's market price sensitivity, will end in austerity.
Commerce is not a voluntary activity. It is a necessary function for survival. Living alone on a deserted island means no commerce, and it means a real threat to survival. If you get sick or hurt, and there is no one with whom to trade for medical care, your chances of survival become extremely limited.
If it was the intention of the founders to give the gov control over your right to earn a living and survive, then they were idiots. But seeing as how this is what Europe was trying to do them, which caused them to engage in a rebellion with the world's superpower, it seems illogical that they would try and replicate the very thing they were risking their lives to escape.
Look, if you want to be a peasant go ahead, but like all tyrants that collapse into name calling in an attempt to quell dissent, I will resist any attempts you engage in to make me be a peasant with you.
So Far, 2012 Is Eerily Similar To 1987 [View article]
The FF rate in Oct 86 was 5.85. Notice the chart above and were the S&P was right before 1987. The FF rate rose all through the year until...you guessed it Oct of 1987 when it hit 7.29. Then it lowered until March of 88, when it hit 6.87.
To QE Or Not To QE, That Is The Question [View article]