Evening,
Well, I am a sitt'in here watching and thinking about the weather in our area and whether any tornados will form; per the watch in place. Not that Michigan is the only state with changing weather and seasonal patterns that take on their own forms.
Kinda reminds one of the "markets". I don't find much happy the past few days with just about every sector. The Ball of Confusion factor, I do believe; is in play, on the court of money.
Now, I will state that I had a chat today with an old friend; about 90 years young and for purposes of this write, I will name her, "Deep Pockets". She's kinda like the insider of things, not unlike "DeepThroat" of the Richard Nixon/Watergate era was to the reporters at the Washington Post.
I noted to her that I had been pondering Mr. Bernanke's pending speech at Jackson Hole, WY; and suspect the BIG market kids must be doing the same. Thus, the Ball of Confusion.
I commented that Mr. B had a way with every single word that he carefully utters; and that includes the understanding of what he does NOT say, too. His fine tuned beard matches his words and character. What does he think about when he trims that beard? What type of music does he prefer? Perhaps, not unlike us; his music varies with the mood of a situation.
The humorists Will Rogers and Mark Twain would have a fine time with Mr. B and his speeches.
What should really be a four minute speech; I would offer the following for him:
"Folks; politicians, investors, pension fund managers and global leaders, et al. We at the Federal Reserve have used up all of our monetary ammo and you need to get your act together; OR unwind and fall where you stand. We're out of bailouts, here and abroad, we've pushed on the string and it won't move anymore and we recently pronounced that the Fed funds rate will be held low for about 2 more years. For those of you who have any fiscal or investment wits about you; you all have had more than enough time to be at least at a break even point with your investments from the cliff of 2008. If you are not, including all the big pension funds; we are not able to offer you more.
I thank you for your time, no questions will be taken and a hard copy of this speech is available. NOW, I am going to have a Big Mac, some Mickie D fries, a large soft drink and crank up some Jimi Hendrix songs. Have a pleasant remainer of your day."
.....Ramblings from Jackson Hole.....
Take care of you and yours,
Catch
Comments
whatever u have in ur mix drink, i want some too... :O) lol...
Feds probably have nothin' left in their power to stop this train to wreck imho, probably choppy trade/side ways the next 6-12 months
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/17/us-markets-fed-jackson-hole-idUSTRE77G62V20110817
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/22/us-pimco-fed-gross-idUSTRE75L4L820110622
Now, as for stimulating the economy they may have used much of the "monetary" tools but they are still capable of doing more. The issue at hand, will there be more political will to do more. I think politicizing the Fed and subjecting it to political attacks has been irresponsible.
Catch: BTW, you referred to "fiscal ammo". I think you meant "monetary ammo" since fiscal refers to budget and fiscal tools belongs to the congress and the administration.
Hey, just hav'in some fun. But, it really would be a statement I would like to hear from him. A kinda...."ya'll need to get ur stuff together."
Still not a fan of what this private bank has become............
Ok, not more FED talk from me. Tis not unlike a discussion about religion.
Take care of you and yours.
for short term trading, wonder if Irene will impact NE of US, maybe good to get inverse of sp500 for few days for trading purposes [futures slightly lower tonight]
"The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost." "Under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and, hence, positive inflation. The U.S. government is not going to print money and distribute it willy-nilly ...although there are policies that approximate this behavior."[1]
You get a sense of not only what he may do, but how far he is willing to push the envelope. Look at 3 through 7 (1 and 2 are above) on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernanke_Doctrine
Just my private thoughts; but Mr. Perry has appeared to already have placed his foot into his mouth, in a very deep fashion. I find the impression of a mega-ego for the fella.
And yes, I am in a feisty mood this morning.
Regards,
Catch
Morn'in...........john, me only drink was water. The write was just a thought that passed through the brain cells for a brief period of time.
Catch
The leader of Texas has shown himself to be the worst kind of politician. Say outrageous stupid things that when repeated enough times - people actually believe them. Hell, we could all be standing in bread lines today if there was no action from the fed. If the fed didn't take action, I suppose Perry and the other political bozos that share his politically motivated behavior would be saying, "why didn't the fed step in and do something. Why didn't they do their job?".
Oh, and my favorite Perry move, the 'Evangelical like' rally sponsored by a religious group that says the first amendment for freedom of religion is only applicable to Christians. Hmm, does Perry believe that too?
Okay, enough ranting. Guess you can tell I don't like the guy.
Oh well, if McCane would have been elected I guess Democrats would be the ones making outrageous comments now.
Hi mikeM... - i use to be a democrat, now I am probably a middle wing swing voter [maybe slight republican after living in Texas > 10 yrs].... I guess the hot suns, wild farms, and all the barbecues get to you somehow [sooner or later].
Personally, I hated Bush SO MUCH BEFORE, what a drastic changes after 4 yrs, I think the Republicans party [not the tea party] may have more to offer than Democrats this time around. I just hate to see all the zillions dollars get wasted on the poor whom are lazy and don't do anything to help this country and sit at home wasting away/fleecing our tax dollars, Big Govt Care. Obama would give 'em more benefits so they would be more lazy and claim more sick leave. Is that fair to you?
AT least the middle class Americans, like you and I, and and most of swing voters are the ones working hard and keepin' this country up float. to waste more money into big govt, I think that would be a wrong ways to go. I think to be successful in this country, we may have to tax the wealthy, and cut more deficits to be more lean/mean and compete w/ rest of the world. We all need to get back to work [like what rono preached before, learn a new set of skills if you got terminated from your previous professions/transform your self to survive. I think all these may take lots of work. I think we should DRASTICALLY cut the deficits and cut most wealth fare/health care programs, tax the wealthy rich [at least 3-10% more]... These are the drastic steps to save money/cut deficit for our country/leave our country in the same OR BETTER SHAPE then what we've got now - at least this is what our founding fathers/constitution preaches. Too much deficit is unhealthy to our country. I think everything has to be reasonably priced, and giving too much without getting much in return could be disastrous even TREASON to this country
I am not a christian NOR a LEFT WING REPUBLICAN, but I do believe in karma/Buddhisms - what you put into the system is what you'll get out of it!
by the way, I think Romey may make a reasonable president and may get more things done than Perry IMHO
sorry if this post is racial/offensive - after drinkin' too much cofe LOL...
So, either they act again in a manner that will likely accomplish "buying time", or they don't and those who are so thankful that the Fed acted will find out what it's like when things are worse and we've spent the money (with nothing particularly productive or long-lasting to show for it) and are in deeper in debt and have a government that can't agree on anything. I don't like "Deflation: Making Sure It Can't Happen Here" Bernanke, but I will say - as I did this morning - that we need strong government and one that has to sometimes make difficult, unpopular decisions. If we don't have that, we effectively trying to put air into a tire with a hole in it and wondering why it isn't staying inflated.
I don't care for either political party's side, but I'm baffled by those who believe and/or act like that we're anywhere close to repairing major issues. Given the unheard of size and scope of what has been done the last few years, the fact that we're where we are and having the discussions we are in the world (and rather close to slipping back towards where we were with nothing really to do about it should that be the chosen route) should be disappointing to many.
Well, a little venting, eh? Venting can be healthy.
I must note that I did reply earlier to you that I only had water to drink. My last adult beverage was some wine several months ago. Actually, I should probably have more wine for health reasons.
You wrote, "In texas, we shoot first then ask questions later..."
Sure a lot of that going around in the world, eh? The last time I thought about this; is that being a "gunslinger will eventually cause one to come into contact and/or contest with another gunslinger." I will note that the two recent events, (one noted by Mindy and the other by MikeM) do indeed reflect to a bit of a gunslinger attitude by Mr. Perry.
Now, I must presume; until you define otherwise, that you find a drastic change for the better, with Mr. Perry at the governor's seat; vs GW Bush.
As Mr. Perry thinks he wants to be the President; and I tend to follow such events; I personally would appreciate any insight from a citizen of Texas that will enlighten me as to who this man really is, how has he helped Texas, and what attributes (positive or negative) that would allow a fella like me, who is so far away from the activities of Texas and the actions of Mr. Perry so that I have a better understanding of this man.
As always, with these political things; I sure need some proof from a track record of results, and not just chit-chat from a candidate.
As always, take care
Catch
The speed thing is debatable, but totally, completely agreed on the general theme.
"We are doomed."
It sounds doomier when Marc Faber (speaking of, great interview on CNBC the other day - the interviewer asked him what he would advise, and he said it depends on the person's situation, including "How many girlfriends you have.") says it with that accent ("I believe vee ahh dooommmed."), but that would be my fear, yeah.
" As far as Gov. Perry goes, I'm not convinced he has any real solutions to solve our fiscal problems."
None of them do. Anyone have any evidence to the contrary that doesn't start with blaming one party or the other ("If it wasn't for...")?
This guy (Perry) is one of the most disingenuous politicians you could find.
It is crony capitalism. Remember his Trans-Texas corridor which was the largest land grab that even Republicans could not stomach. How about his mandatory vaccination of all girls in Texas by a vaccine that is produced only by a particular pharmaceutical company (which he is close). Can you spell big-government?
He has filled all state agencies with his allies and those that are close to him and provide campaign funds get funding from Texas Tomorrow fund.
Oh he complains about government. Almost all of his life has been in the government. He is staying on a $10K/mo villa while the official residence is being repaired. Does he really need to spend $10K/mo while teachers are being laid off?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/rick-perry-rental-mansion_n_578311.html
This guy is going to sign laws in the church in order to court votes.
Perhaps him getting elected as President is out way of getting rid of him early.
" The Fed acted, acted again, and here we are discussing whether or not QE3 will happen because things ain't so great."
Sorry Scott, you can keep spouting the fact we are in dire straights all you want (and I don't disagree) but I just won't buy the scenario that we would have been better off if the fed didn't attempt to increase liquidity. In fact, I think it's absurd. Were there ever guarantees the QE stimulus would work? - no, it was a risk and obviously still is.
Was the money used effectively? That's a better argument. I believe not, but that doesn't mean we should not have taken the "risk" to divert world disaster. I'm guessing the world would have fallen into an even 'greater' depression than after the '29 stock market crash. We'll never know, but most economists think that.
Are we doomed as Maurice says or you imply? Hell, there have been doom-sayers throughout history; the Civil War, WWll, the great depression and in my memory, the cold war of the 50's-60's when we went through nuclear bomb drills in school. We all hid under our desks for protection.
I guess I prefer (and I think live happier) thinking the US will always be a great country. We will have an evolving economic outlook that will look different then the past, yes, but that has always been the case. 30 years from now, you will be sitting on a beach sipping a Chardonnay and wondering what all the commotion was about
To clarify, I don't think that no action should have been taken. I think that action *without focus on long-lasting, sustainable benefits* - was a massive mistake. Instead of having money spent on productive investment (badly needed infrastructure improvements), you had flight of capital into other countries, commodities, currencies, etc. It's the Jim Rogers scenario - give me a few trillion and I can throw a great party, too. However, the hangover was - and is - going to be epic.
If we'd directed more money towards large-scale infrastructure improvements (smart grid, whatever, talking about it is almost futile at this point and with this government), that wouldn't necessarily be a guaranteed winner either (who's spending the money, can the government make an actual decision, etc), but we would at least have large projects to show for it and those projects would most likely have lasting benefits.
No one's saying that it would have been better had we done nothing - and it's not "all or nothing". All I'm saying - and all I have been saying, really - is that putting some thought towards the future (and I'll stand by the view that didn't happen) rather than throwing money willy-nilly at the problem in the hopes that it will go away would have nice.
Realizing that rebuilding after the credit crisis was going to take time and a more thoughtful and detailed approach to cleaning up after the financial crisis instead of snapping fingers with a giant QE, mark-to-fantasy accounting and scrambling to see how fast we could turn the music back on. The error of thinking that the quick route of giant QE was the right path rather than supportive measures as needed over a longer period (rehab, and rehab was never going to be fun, but at the end, at least we'd move forward in a more clean and sober manner financially than we chose to. Had we focused on improving infrastructure - broadband, smart grid and more, we would start to move forward with more efficient infrastructure, which would have increased productivity and possibly lead to cost benefits, among other potential gains.)
Yeah, it's no fun, but I tend to think we would be starting to move forward in a smoother manner at this point rather than going, "Gee, Bank of America and Citi appear in trouble again. Didn't we just bail them out 3 years ago?" It's shocking to me that there's no apparent outrage that financial institutions that got massive bailouts are still in the state they're in. Some banks may have gone under in 2008. Banks have gone under in the past and the world didn't end. If you say that banks can't go under because the financial system is so interconnected, then you are telling me that this problem will continue to come back again and again until someone bothers to fix it (because if the banks are aware that they cannot fail due to their interconnected nature, why learn from what happened in 2008?) - and they won't.
Oddly enough, just as I'm writing this, there is discussion on CNBC about the age of NYC's infrastructure and whether or not the old pipes and other infrastructure could have serious problems if the rain comes in force from the hurricane.
Additionally, we had the worst financial crisis in decades; you don't fix that without some difficult decisions. Not a popular statement, but I don't think that anyone who wrote the Bernanke doctrine would view QE as a "difficult decision". Rather than trying to put some thought into trying to have that not happen again, we tried to get reboot the system to a few years prior as fast as possible. No one wants to face the issues or make unpopular decisions, and it would appear that we're just going to drag the residual effects of 2008 over years and possibly the next decade.
It's the Hugh Hendry quote: "We can spread this over twenty years or get rid of it over three." I don't think twenty (10?), but we appear to have chosen the former path, without question. Without question.
This could easily get disorderly when stretched over a longer period, and I question whether the path we're on right now is even sustainable without things breaking down when it becomes evident to many that there really is no plan beyond can kicking (which will likely require increasingly creative attempts) and politically popular, "cash-for-clunkers" style mini-boosts. Things that don't require difficult or unpopular decisions and make people happy for the moment. The flaw is thinking that they're just going to do something down the road to fix the problems we face. They're not. What evidence is there that they will until it's not voluntary that they face these problems - and by that time, where are we going to be? Who knows. Sweeping things under the carpet does not work, though.
"Sorry Scott, you can keep spouting the fact we are in dire straights all you want (and I don't disagree)"
So, if you don't disagree that we're in dire straights (although some seemed to disagree with me that multiple rounds of QE would not end with rainbows and sunshine a couple of years ago), what's the next step if we've just spent the last three years or so with the most aggressive monetary/fiscal policy in decades (if not ever?) and we're still in what you would agree as some degree of dire straights?
I think that's the question I have and not from a doom-y perspective, but *genuine curiosity*. "Now what?"
"Are we doomed as Maurice says or you imply? "
I don't necessarily think we're doomed in the traditional sense, or that any form of doom is imminent. I do, however, think that this is still an incredibly fragile time period and investors have to prepare for more of the kind of significant volatility that we've seen. Another crisis over the next 12-24 months (and I'll even say 12-18) would not surprise me, but I don't think it will take on the same form as 2008.
" Were there ever guarantees the QE stimulus would work? - no, it was a risk and obviously still is."
There was no guarantees it would work, although I didn't see how massive rounds of QE and little else would have created a sustainable recovery. Still don't.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-26/bernanke-scholar-advises-bernanke-fed-chief-to-be-bold-on-monetary-policy.html