Testing The Financial Apologists

In this topic, I wish to present a few of the sources which I listen to and specifically address not only who they are and what their credentials are but what they actually say.Feel free to comment, but understand that I want to know your sources also. CNN doesn't really count, nor does the mainstream media. They tell us what we want to hear and shelter us from what is really going on.I will edit this opening post and get the argument going later on after work.Edited by Phat, .

Barrons recently had a good article on the macro-cosmic efforts of the Fed to control the economy.
The Fed Is Deep in Uncharted Waters. Danger Ahead.

quote:

---

Fed policy has three key components, none of which have worked as planned. The post-2010 recovery was the weakest since the Second World War; inflation constantly surprises the central bank, and markets keep rising to troubling and sometimes disastrous heights even as U.S. economic inequality gets steadily more acute.

​

The Fed first relies on ultra-low rates set via its longstanding open-market operations. These low, low rates are making it harder for middle-class families to save while boosting the fortunes of the ultra-rich. And while the Fed won’t own up to its part in inequality, it has set rates so low that there’s no room for error above the “zero lower bound” at which short-term rates would become negative in nominal terms, just the inflation-adjusted ones to which we’ve become all too familiar. It thus added quantitative easing to its toolkit, striding even farther off the shore and from known, safe territory.

​

In QE, the Fed buys trillions of Treasury and agency assets. Now, these have grown to $8.3 trillion or about one-third of U.S. GDP. The Fed thought that all these trillions would make a major macroeconomic difference in part by giving banks cash with which to lend, thus boosting growth. However, bank lending as a percentage of GDP has gone steadily down even as markets go ever upward. An important study shows that the Fed’s portfolio has had ten times more impact on equity prices than output.

​

The reason? The more safe assets the Fed takes out of financial markets, the greater the demand for them, the lower the rates safe issuers such as Treasury need to pay, and the more investors desperate for real returns above zero head into high-risk equity and bond markets. The Fed thought that interest on the reserves banks hold at the Fed in the course of QE would bolster traditional rate-setting operations by placing a floor under short-term rates. But the floor keeps sinking even though the Fed continues to tinker with the rate it pays banks to park funds with the Fed.

---

I may be no genius, but I can see that the Federal Reserve is essentially in checkmate. By allowing inflation to rise, the Fed may well plan on paying back the U.S. long-term National Debt or at least reducing debt to GDP ratio. In a very real sense, however, inflation is a hidden form of taxation. For the consumer, real purchasing power gets debased.There is no consensus on whether we will see inflation or deflation, but one point that is repeatedly brought up is the difference between the inflation of the mid 1970's and todays challenges.

quote:

---

Although Jay Powell delivered his all-important annual address atop a virtual Wyoming mountain, the Federal Reserve is nonetheless mired in the Big Muddy. This mythical river was described in a high-impact Pete Seeger song mobilizing Vietnam War opposition. In it, soldiers led by politicians start out in a small, clear stream, wade on and, as the waters rise and the mud deepens, keep going because they don’t and then can’t turn around. All they do is march on to a surely-grim fate. So too with U.S. monetary policy: It’s past time to turn around but still critical that the Fed quickly do so.(...)Does the Fed like getting this wet and dirty? Of course not. It wants banks to lend out their cash and knows that savings—not speculation—best ensures financial stability. It also knows that its huge portfolio distorts markets, making them far more dependent on utterances from central bank officials than any profit-or-loss fundamental. And the Fed also knows that backing markets with billions and trillions encourage behavior that is at best unwise from yield-chasing investors.

​

What it doesn’t know is how to step back, turn around, and go back to the shallow waters in which its presence made a meaningful difference toward ensuring shared prosperity and financial stability.

​

There are, though, ways to the shallow end. First, the Fed should understand the U.S. economy as income and wealth inequality has now come to define it. It should set employment and price-stability goals that reflect the nation as a whole, not the segments of it that speak through financial markets.

​

Second, it should go quickly beyond Powell’s August promise of some sort of suspension of some amount of new Fed asset purchases sometime soon. The distortions due in large part to these purchases are pushing key markets to dangerous heights—see for example the price of U.S. homes, which grew 17.4% year-over-year and an astonishing 4.9% from just the first to the second quarter. Tapering the Fed’s huge holdings would help rates to rise a bit because the artificial demand created by the Fed’s trillions of bond purchases would ease. More normal rates mean more normal markets, bringing the U.S. further from the dangerous dividing line beyond which lies real negative rates and the harm these would do to so many investors and to anyone still foolish enough to contemplate saving for the future.

---

Some of the financial apologists whom I will quote own their own firms...so some bias is likely in what they say, though I would not discount what they say (and all loosely agree upon) as outright deception. We know that the Fed has made an art form of saying that they may do something (raising or lowering interest rates, for example) and then letting the markets react to their announcement without actually carry the action through.The problem with inflation was finally halted in the late 1970s through the actions of Paul Volker. He raised interest rates to nearly 20%. This halted the runaway inflation. The Fed can not do this now, with a National Debt approaching 29 trillion dollars. The interest on such a debt would exceed the total tax revenues of the Federal Government.

quote:

---

The problem with policy quagmires isn’t knowing you should get out; it’s getting out. Like the U.S. presidents who confronted Vietnam, Iraq, and—now and at least as tragic—Afghanistan, the Fed knows it needs to get out of the Big Muddy. Each way out seems blocked so it gets in ever deeper, but ever deeper is ever more dangerous. The more the Fed perpetuates markets that depend only on central-bank largesse, not price discovery and disciplinary correction, the greater the risk that inescapable retreat leads to costly casualties.

---

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I can go with CNN or Yahoo Finance or other news media, but I want to present some arguments that counter what you claim to be common sense but which I continually hear to be dangerous economic policies. One example: Fiat Currencies. Money cannot simply be backed by future promises. The Central Banks own Gold for a reason. Do you have any idea why they own gold at all? Granted my source is an investment newsletter but does it not make sense? I have found very few who disagree with the premise that fiat currencies inflate over time and that their value in real purchasing power continually drops.What is the role of Central Banks?Is it not wrong for the purchasing power of the middle class to become continually eroded?Why must we be fed this lie that encourages us to invest our retirements in stocks when it appears clear (at least to me) that the markets themselves are in a Fed-generated bubble? And why is it that the insiders always know when to take their profits and get out and leave the rest of us(even those with strong investment brokers) holding the bag?Finally, why is it that politicians from both sides of the aisle seem unable to stop borrowing (and/or allowing the Fed to "print" more and more money?)Inflation is a very real tax.Edited by Phat, : punctuation

Using information from the sights that you have provided, I found consensual agreement that supports my basic arguments.In addition, I cite several "financial apologists" whom I believe have enough solid credentials that they are worth a listen. Granted some of their YouTube titles are clickbait! To Wit:
Lyn Alden
From Open Transcript: So who pays? Who gets the bill for the US Military helping Global Commerce?The jury is still out on whether I have an intuitive sense or simply falling for snake oil. The arguments seem sound. The Bill is getting paid through inflationary pressures on the U.S.Middle Class.

QE refers to Quantatative Easing, which is a euphimism for monetizing the debt. Barrons explains what the Fed does and why it is risky.And I argue that regardless of my sources, these sources have some points that are true. You can argue otherwise. Lets see the documentation.The world is always undergoing changes and one of the main problems in this world is greed. Developing nations are initiating actions that can and will adversely impact our planet in negative ways.
The World’s Second Largest Rainforests Are In Danger!

quote:

---

The world's most extensive tropical peatlands were discovered in the Congo Basin's swamp forests in 2012. These habitats are estimated to sequester up to 30 billion metric tons of carbon; disturbing them could result in massive carbon releases.

---

It is not fair for the developing world to make the same mistakes that the United States and other industrialized Western nations have already made and corrected. The whole planet will end up in a massive war of diminishing global resources. The financial apologists, unlike you and other financial conservatives, know that the debt is approaching unsustainability and there will be some major corrections. Im not sure why you label me as delusional when you cant see the obvious handwriting on the wall! Oh, and about the global warming---who is gonna get stuck with that bill? Any way you cut it, the Western Middle and working class will get stuck with the bill. Which is the essence of my whole obsessive concern.However... Not even close. I owe nothing...nada...zero on this condo and I intend for it to stay that way. I may have been born at night but not last night! Do you disagree that quantitative easing is simply a euphemism for monetizing the debt? Helicopter money. Ben Bernanke was known as helicopter Ben, but his actions were those of a piker compared to Powell and Janet Yellin.Edited by Admin, : Fix quoting.

I know...it is an auto-generated transcript....yet people often talk incoherently in run-on sentences. Grammar is dead these days.Lyn Alden is not simply slanging gold, however. (He *does* have an investment service.) So what?
Sovereign Default, the Debt Ceiling, and the $1 Trillion Coin

quote:

---

Congress is the political body that authorizes spending by the US federal government.

​

Prior to 1917, Congress authorized individual bond issuance to supplement tax revenue to fulfill specific spending allocations. Eventually, beyond a certain scale for fiscal spending during World War I, this practice became administratively unsustainable.

​

From 1917 onward, Congress instead would allow the US Treasury Department to issue bonds as it sees fit, albeit constrained by a Congressionally-set debt ceiling. Put simply, Congress (the Legislative Branch) stopped micromanaging Treasury bond issuance to fund spending authorizations (thus leaving it as a function of the Executive Branch) but still retained its authority to ensure a division of powers by limiting the total amount of debt issuance, and still has to authorize federal spending.

​

According to data going back to 1960 by the US Treasury, Congress has raised or extended the debt ceiling 78 times, including 29 times under Democratic presidents and 49 times under Republican presidents.

​

A handful of times in recent years, most notably in 2011 but a few other times as well, Congress used the debt ceiling in order to pressure a presidential administration to either extract a bargain or for narrative gain.

​

Often, when politicians oppose raising the debt ceiling, they do so within the narrative of fiscal constraint, but that is mostly political theater.
The debt ceiling on its own is a separate concept from new spending authorization, although it can be combined into the same piece of legislation. Raising the debt ceiling itself doesn’t authorize new spending; it merely allows the government to continue paying its previously-authorized spending obligations. To not raise the debt ceiling means the government either has to not pay previously-authorized spending obligations, or default on its national debt, which is accumulated over time from previously authorized spending obligations.

​

In other words, logically speaking, the idea of fiscal constraint is relevant when deciding on new spending and taxation plans, but not relevant during debt ceiling disputes, which are about prior spending plans. To promote fiscal constraint, politicians can vote against increases in spending, or propose new legislation that reduces existing ongoing spending obligations.

---

Lyn is no huckster nor an economic idiot.She essentially says the same thing Percy told me.

quote:

---

Decades and centuries ago, when dollars were backed by gold, the US could potentially run out of gold.

​

Indeed, the US eventually did default on those gold standard systems by devaluing the dollar relative to gold in 1934 and outright eliminating any gold-backing of the dollar whatsoever in 1971, without compensating the existing holders of dollars and Treasuries for these sudden changes of contract. The government didn’t have enough gold to keep up with the spending plans they wanted to do without changing the definition of what a dollar is. In the age of fiat currency since 1971, where a dollar is not directly backed by anything in particular or guaranteed to have any specific value, the government can’t run out of its own printed dollars. That says nothing about the value of those dollars, however. If too much money is printed, it can result in price inflation or in extreme cases, hyperinflation. For a monetarily sovereign country, debts can always be paid back nominally, but not necessarily with the same purchasing power as when they were issued. For example, the purchasing power of US Treasuries fell rapidly in the 1940s inflationary decade and the 1970s inflationary decade.

---

Sometimes I think that you liberals could care less about the US Middle Class when you can help the world. The thing is, the world is connected to the dollar...though this is decoupling. Both Russian and China do not buy their oil (nor sell it) in US Dollars.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

From Message 105

quote:

---

The federal government’s interest payments depend largely on interest rates and the amount of debt held by the public. Other factors, such as the rate of inflation and the maturity structure of outstanding securities, also affect interest costs. (For example, long-term bonds generally carry higher interest rates than do short-term bills.) Interest rates are determined by market forces, such as the supply and demand for Treasury securities, and the policies of the Federal Reserve.

---

This is why the Fed has been checkmated. They cannot afford to raise interest rates, which was the main way that Volcker fought inflation in the late seventies early eighties.History shows that inflation was only contained through rising interest rates.From Message 107
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

quote:

---

Despite historically low-interest rates, this significant interest cost is the result of high levels of debt. This cost could be even worse if interest rates rise. Each one percent rise in the interest rate would increase FY 2021 interest spending by roughly $225 billion at today’s debt levels. Growing debt levels not only add to the likelihood of such increases, but also the cost and risk associated with them.

---

Well, what mystifies me is how and why you are so convinced that you have things right.If you can, answer me a couple of questions to the best of your understanding.1) Do you believe and/or agree that the purchasing power of your money is decreasing year by year? If not, why? I have seen statistics that essentially say that a 1940 dollar is worth 5 cents in today's money.When grandma told us that bread only cost a nickel, we can find a bargain loaf for just over a dollar today. The bread is the same size.Inflation has been defined, among other ways, as too much money chasing too few goods. Note that even as the money supply is increasing, there are growing supply chain shortages.

You all are old and you all live in the past! And First of all, not everyone who sells or trades in gold or silver or who writes a book is a snake oil salesman. Sometimes I honestly think that it is you guys who are actually ignorant of what is happening. I recently read a book (or rather listened on Audible) called Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World.It so happens that Google invited the author to their Talks at Google series to share her perspective. Nobody here will watch this, so I dont know why I am wasting my time...but I will try and clip some significant points that she makes out of the transcript and allow my EvC sages to laugh it all off as more snake oil and more con. The google staff questioned her quite thoroughly on her book and she answered them.
Lets discuss the transcript. I am not convinced that she is simply selling snake oil. She has credentials.Read the transcript from 35:58-40:00 (roughly) and here the answer to one relevant question from the audience.Edited by Phat, : added transcript reference

I will admit that the ideas are controversial. What I don't see is that all of what I listen to is snake oil. I honestly think that the system is broken.

Actually, I thought about what you said even before you said it. If Gold and/or silver are going to be worth a lot why on earth aren't the wealthier people than I buying them up as well? Then it occurred to me that some of them probably were.Even conservative investment advisors recommended that one have 5% of their net worth invested in such commodities. 5% of 5 million dollars is 250,000.00So yes, you do have a point. What gets me is that the logic that I see you guys fail to see. Never before in history has there been as much monetizing and inflating of our currency as has the US done since 2008.

OK Percy I will give it the old college try. Message 16-- I own my car, though it is a clunker and a money pit. (2002 Buick). The price of used cars has shot up exponentially just in the past year and I dont have much of a nest egg. Gold is not an investment. It is an insurance policy to protect against bad investments and financial corrections. AZPaul3 is correct, however in that a man of my limited means will never outbid the wealthy people who can afford diversification. Im better off buying stable groceries to save up and use once inflation does its work on our prices. Current conservative predicions average 6% a year for 3 years followed by more stable radings, but as they found out in the late seventies, inflation is not easily stopped without raising interest rates. What other way can it be stopped? And keep in mind that were it not for debt there would be no inflation nor deflation. Message 17 -- I learn slowly through trial and error but I also am intuitive beyond what most critical thinkers dare not do. Granted I am anxious yet fascinated by doomsday prognostications for reasons yet unknown. It feels good thinking that the majority of people do not see what I see. My challenge now is figuring out what if anything I actually DO see. So lets keep talking. Message 20-- Im still learning which facts are relevant and which are part of a con.I think that you think that everything is cyclical and that life goes on year after year with out any major reset, apocolyptic or otherwise. But we can both agree that global warming is potentially apocolyptic and they seem slow at addressing that. I would further argue that human nature is intrinsically self serving rather than empathetic. I dont want to see the US middle class and myself suffer.We have gone off the rails since 2007 and I'm not sure we will ever return to where we were as a nation and indeed globally with secure financial resources. And yet you would love for all of the Christian Middle class to give all that they have (and join your ranks in so doing) simply so you dont have to work so hard struggling to pay bills and eat! I see too many people who would rather steal than get a minimum wage job. And its flat-out evil evil evil. Yes we know. You want to sit around at the park with the other homeless people and enjoy life. If you know any of them who steal, you would do well to tell them to cut it out.

In response to Message 876OK I relocated the topic here. We can all continue. (And I think it's odd that you mention "we" as if the EvC peanut gallery is the Supreme Court. I've noticed that a lot of you use the same terminology.You all are wrong about finance in general. It may take me a while to prove it, using my own words. But I will try.
​

I know you claim that I dont understand numbers and you are partly right. If I see something explained, it helps a bit. It always did in math/economics/accounting classes at any rate.This article recently appeared in Business Insider.(6/24/22)
Russia and China are brewing up a challenge to dollar dominance by creating a new reserve currency Basically, there is a financial "war" of sorts between the dollar friendly nations and the BRIC alliance. (Brazil, Russia, India, China.) George Gammon explains the macro-economics behind this and how the US dollar, though weaponized and high right now, will face some big challenges. Putin and China just did the unthinkable and the West is in big trouble
George Gammon explains it quite well on a whiteboard. I can almost see the logic, but admit that I dont understand economics all that well. I have been accused of accepting conman arguments, but see nothing wrong with Gammons whiteboard argument.
Are The Global Elite Weaponizing The Fed?
Greg Mannarino also explains the whole scenario. He is actually quite easy to listen to. And he does not sell gold! System Will ‘Wipe Out’ Entire Class as Global Economy Spins Into Free Fall, Warns Greg MannarinoDon't let sensationalist titles prevent you from listening. Everyone wants to push their videos. Daniella Cambone works for Stansberry Research.What I think I do understand is that soon, all money will be digital and out of the control of private ownership. While you may see this as a good thing, (to keep the wealthy from hiding their wealth and pulling it out of the banking system) I see it as trouble for the US shrinking middle class. And I see the charge that the Dollar based (Euro-dollar) system is being challenged by BRIC as concerning. We are unstable financially even though Russia is "broke" now.

Edited by Phat, .

In ten seconds, nobody could even critique what he said.Someone else asked me why I should take youtube videos seriously rather than Barrons or the Wall Street Journal, which is a valid point. Quite frankly, I don't think that the likes of Jerome Powell and Janet Yellin are ignorant. I DO think that they are very aware that what they say publically itself could spook the markets and not be encouraging to investors. Thus, I think that the public hears very little of what is actually happening.Perhaps the question is "do the YouTubers have any real education or training in economics or investing? I think that you error on the side of skepticism,(1) you trust what the mainstream investment papers tell you(2) and you tend to see such competing narratives as wither con-artist(101) or the theories of Republicans(3).To b e fair, I am under the impression(illusion?) that Democrats are more likely to see things from a global perspective and are not as worried about Fiat money being backed by nothing except the faith of the people. You know as do I that the US Middle class will take the hit either way if a hit is forthcoming, but it seems to be nowhere near as bothersome for you and the rest of EvC.Even if a middle-class individual has to pay more and save less, you would still advocate not only being taxed more to help the lower middle class here in the United States but would even go so far as to help the global poor more aggressively. I'm not being heartless by questioning your logic for it is not (or should not be) an emotional no-brainer. It should be viewed practically.Are all of you prepared to have maybe as much as 25% of your wealth value wiped out?