|
||
Relevant: |
2012-01-27 — wsj.com
That's the best way to understand the FOMC's remarkable announcements on Wednesday, followed by Mr. Bernanke's quarterly press conference. The central bank had already promised to keep short-term rates near-zero through most of 2013, but now it feels the need to assure investors it will keep them there through the end of 2014. That would be six years in total, more than half of what may eventually become known as the Fed's Zero Decade. Mull that one over: The Fed is declaring that it needs to run the same super-easy monetary policy when the economy is growing by 2% or 3% as it did amid the worst of the financial panic. And keep doing it past the horizon. The unavoidable implication is that the Fed doesn't think the economy will grow any faster until what would be halfway through Mr. Obama's second term. The other implication is that the Fed has no idea what to do other than to push even harder on the monetary accelerator. Maybe this time, it hopes, the economy's clutch will engage. This not-so-quiet desperation was clear in a second Fed release that hasn't received as much attention as it deserves. In a statement redefining how it interprets its policy mandate from Congress, the FOMC said it has "reached broad agreement" on new operating principles. The Fed's dual mandates are stable prices and full employment, and the Fed said sometimes the two are complementary. But from now on when they're in conflict, the Fed essentially said, it will put inflation aside and instead focus principally on cutting joblessness. ... Recall that during the last decade the Fed assured everyone there was nothing to worry about as it kept rates too low for too long, only to create a housing bubble it never did recognize... Where will the risk-taking excesses show up this time? Who knows, and perhaps the Fed will retreat before the worst happens. But it was fascinating to see last week that investors were willing to buy $15 billion in 10-year Treasury inflation-protected securities, or Tips, despite a negative real yield. That's right, investors were willing to accept negative current returns in exchange for security against a future inflation breakout. source article | permalink | discuss | subscribe by: | RSS | email Comments:
gmallast at 01:30 2012-01-28 said:The spirit of Pierre Joseph "property is theft" Proudhon lives!! Anyone for hyperinflation and a run on the dollar? The Chinese, who are holding tons of U.S. debt, are NOT stupid. They are going to start dumping dollars with horrific consequences. Remember Germany 1922? Dr. Bernanke is a crackpot in the line of John Law, Silvio Gessell, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin F. Butler, William H. “Coin†Harvey, and, of course, John Maynard Keynes. He has absolutely NO understanding of the common sense difference between real capital and financial capital. He doesn't get it that real capital can only come from real savings from real production. Furthermore that real jobs can only be financed by real capital. Furthermore, that would-be savers prefer present goods to future goods and need real interest to motivate them to direct production to future goods. Like Proudhon, he seems to hold the medieval superstition that interest is sterile. He seems to think he can just print (or imagineer) everyone rich. Well you can't eat a dollar bill. Nor can you feed the poor with it, or build a house, or manufacture refrigerators. Jean Baptiste Say was correct. Production is primary. Ultimately goods exchange for goods. “…it is production that opens the demand for production.†(“Traite d’Economie Politique,†1803 as quoted in Henry Hazlitt, “The Critics of Keynsian Economics,†1960) Note that the common mis-statement of Say’s Law, “Supply creates its own demand,†turns Say’s Law on its head. Furthermore, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out, there is no basis for the Federal Reserve to even figure out how much money is needed and what the interest rates should be. I don't care about his Ph.D.s and Nobels. Dr. Bernanke is a crank, a crackpot, a thimble rigger, a snake oil salesman, a mountebank, a humbug. If he wants to sue me for libel, I have nearly three centuries of evidence to prove the truth of my contention. Is there any way to get this nut—and with him the rest of the OMC--fired before he destroys the country? Permalinkadd a comment | go to forum thread Note: Comments may take a few minutes to show up on this page. If you go to the forum thread, however, you can see them immediately. |