Ron Paul: "Country Should Panic Over Fed's Decision" QE - Infinity

Lamarr

Star
Registered
Mo Money to the Wall Street, but why should that surprise anyone!

“It should not surprise anybody, but it is still astounding. To me, it is so astounding that it does not collapse the markets. [Bernanke] said, ‘We are in very big trouble. We are going to do something unprecedented and we believe it will not hurt the dollar.’ And yet the stocks, they say ‘we love this stuff.’ But the dollar didn’t do so well today and the real value of the dollar is measured against gold, and gold skyrocketed from its very low to its highest. It means we are weakening the dollar. We are trying to liquidate our debt through inflation. The consequence of what the Fed is doing is a lot more than just CPI. It 6 has to do with malinvestment and people doing the wrong things at the wrong time. Believe me, there is plenty of that. The one thing that Bernanke has not achieved and it frustrates him, I can tell—is he gets no economic growth. He doesn’t do anything with the unemployment numbers. I think the country should have panicked over what the Fed is saying that we have lost control and the only thing we have left is massively creating new money out of thin air, which has not worked before, and is not going to work this time.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ron-paul-country-should-panic-over-feds-decision
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-zCKXJKzs5s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Ron Paul is out of touch with the American people.

The people offer a heartfelt thank you and sigh of relief when a new trillion goes to a banker. I think every time the financial industry gets a trillion in taxpayer money an angel gets their wings.

Why would people care about another $40 billion a month, for mortgage backed securities, into perpetuity. The government should not leave the economy alone. You'll have mass starvation in the streets if a bunch of bankers didn't get an open-ended $40 billion a month.
 
Ron Paul is out of touch with the American people.

The people offer a heartfelt thank you and sigh of relief when a new trillion goes to a banker. I think every time the financial industry gets a trillion in taxpayer money an angel gets their wings.

Why would people care about another $40 billion a month, for mortgage backed securities, into perpetuity. The government should not leave the economy alone. You'll have mass starvation in the streets if a bunch of bankers didn't get an open-ended $40 billion a month.

Notwithstanding the obvious sarcasm/cynicism, what is the basis of your opinion that Real Paul is in touch with the American people or, stated conversely, what is the basis of your opinion that the "American people" are in-line with Ron Paul?

`
 
ron-paul-financial-crisis.jpg
 
P.T. Barnum might have said it:

There is one born every minute!

Lets not deflect from the messege.....Are you concerned about the Fed's recent decision? Why or why not?

Let me back up.................

Did you know there was a policy change at the Fed?
 
There is no sarcasm. Ron Paul does not share the values of the American people. He's lost multiple presidential bids and his own party has use the redistricting process to nudge him into retirement.

Bailouts have been rampant and relatively few politicians have been voted out because of them.

The American people are clearly pro-bailout and giving more money to the financial industry. When Ron Paul speaks ill of government intervention, it clear to me that he's in the minority.

THe death spiral rhetoric was/is very effective.
 
Notwithstanding the obvious sarcasm/cynicism, what is the basis of your opinion that Real Paul is in touch with the American people or, stated conversely, what is the basis of your opinion that the "American people" are in-line with Ron Paul?

`
really.?:smh:
 
It's funny that people think a private banking cartel, that controls all the country's currency & debt, would care about their well-being.

It's like putting a private oil cartel in charge of energy policy... oh, wait, that already happens.

It's like putting a private insurance cartel in charge of health care... oh wait, that already happens, too.

It's like putting a private food cartel in charge of food distribution... oh wait, that also happens.

Hmmm... the United States is nothing more than a series of monopolistic, private cartels that exploits the public for profit.

YAY FOR FREEDOM!
 
Lets not deflect from the messege.....Are you concerned about the Fed's recent decision? Why or why not?

Let me back up.................

Did you know there was a policy change at the Fed?

People are unemployed. Ron Paul has only criticisms, no answers. A trademark of the right.
 
The Fed has announced $40 billion dollars a month going to the financial industry with no time limit. On top of all the trillions that's already gone to them.

Do you see a problem anywhere?
 
<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hf2WAw81OqQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hf2WAw81OqQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
 
There is no sarcasm. Ron Paul does not share the values of the American people. He's lost multiple presidential bids and his own party has use the redistricting process to nudge him into retirement.

Bailouts have been rampant and relatively few politicians have been voted out because of them.

The American people are clearly pro-bailout and giving more money to the financial industry. When Ron Paul speaks ill of government intervention, it clear to me that he's in the minority.

THe death spiral rhetoric was/is very effective.

I asked for clarification because I wasn't sure what you were saying. Thanks for making it clearer. I get the point of this thread and I get the point of your remarks with respect to more bailouts.

However, if 'some' economic action needs to be taken to keep the economy going and/or spur growth/employment - and one branch of government is completely missing in action - (I BELIEVE PURPOSEFULLY MISSING IN ACTION) - should other players simply do nothing, or do they do something, even if there are down-sides to what they might do ???

Now, there may be simple answers to the question and there may be a number of explanations that different people may give as to why we are where we're at (I know, the dangling preposition). But one thing seems certain, inaction by the absent branch of government is and has been costing us dearly for way too damn long now.
 
I asked for clarification because I wasn't sure what you were saying. Thanks for making it clearer. I get the point of this thread and I get the point of your remarks with respect to more bailouts.

However, if 'some' economic action needs to be taken to keep the economy going and/or spur growth/employment - and one branch of government is completely missing in action - (I BELIEVE PURPOSEFULLY MISSING IN ACTION) - should other players simply do nothing, or do they do something, even if there are down-sides to what they might do ???

Now, there may be simple answers to the question and there may be a number of explanations that different people may give as to why we are where we're at (I know, the dangling preposition). But one thing seems certain, inaction by the absent branch of government is and has been costing us dearly for way too damn long now.
This is our differing views of government again. I would say too much action by government is the problem. Not inaction. The US Code and the volume of regulations wouldn't be as massive as it is if government was inactive.

So yes, do nothing. The Fed, Congress, Executive, and Judicial have done enough. I reject your premise that, by government, some "economic action needs to be taken to keep the economy going and/or spur growth/employment."

So what do you think about an open-ended $40 billion a month pledged to the financial industry? Is this the government you wanted?
 
This is our differing views of government again. I would say too much action by government is the problem. Not inaction. The US Code and the volume of regulations wouldn't be as massive as it is if government was inactive.

So yes, do nothing. The Fed, Congress, Executive, and Judicial have done enough. I reject your premise that, by government, some "economic action needs to be taken to keep the economy going and/or spur growth/employment."

So what do you think about an open-ended $40 billion a month pledged to the financial industry? Is this the government you wanted?

Yes, we do have differening views of government. Perhaps, yours is more ideological than mine. I tend to think that my views are more towards the "practical" than the ideological --since time has shown us without fail that NO one ideology contains the answers; that circumstances often dictate the response; and that circumstances change just like the weather and containing weather-like natural and hard to predict disasters -- which tend to defy ideologically rigid responses.

I live in hurricane alley along the northern central Gulf of Mexico and I know that you can't stop an approaching hurricane -- but I also know that you don't just DO NOTHING! In fact, to do nothing would not only be ludicrous, but borderng upon the insane. So, you do those practical things to protect life and property; things that lessen the effects and speed the recovery.

What I think about the latest QE?:
I think the ideological response to QE Latest may be just as bad as that which it complains. Now, I'm not an economist (not even an amateur one which many on this board seem to lay claim) but as a mere observer it seems apparent that NOTHING shares a lot of the blame.

The way I see it, "Confidence" has a lot to do with the success of our economy. Consumer Confidence; Commercial Confidence; and Global Confidence. The more confidence from those sectors, especially among consumers, the better.

Everything I read tells me that confidence is lacking. Recent reports show that uncertainty is holding our economy down and having a huge impact upon unemployment in this country. Now, I don't think anyone disputes that we are still experiencing economic difficulties. And I don't think anyone can dispute the unemployment rate. So, I think it unconscionable to do NOTHING in the face of these woes. Hence, some things, even if they are not "THE" solutions, have to be done.

Would I prefer that QE Latest be employed or that Congress get its ass in town and start working on OUR problems -- and stop the fucking political games in the mere attempt to derail an election ???

The answer is clear. I prefer to do something, instead of nothing -- and that something would be to order Congress to return and get to fucking work. But, since ordering Congress back to work still would not accomplish the desired: stop the bullshit and solve some damn problems -- I quess for now, QE Latest, though imperfect as it might be, is what Congress has left as the "Default Answer".

 
Hong Kong Fed's Epiphany: Is Bernanke Wrong About Everything?

It seems not every nation's head of central banking believes in the Bernanke Doctrine of moar QE is better QE... Hong Kong Monetary Authority Chief Executive Norman Chan said Monday that quantitative easing is not a panacea, and added:

Hong Kong Monetary Authority Chief Executive Norman Chan said Monday that if the process of deleveraging is disrupted by quantitative easing, asset prices might drop sharply and remain volatile.

When delivering a speech entitled the Global Deleveraging: The Right Track at the Hong Kong Economic Summit 2013, Chan said that excessive leveraging, or over-borrowing, in major industrialized countries was the root cause of both the global financial crisis and the more recent sovereign debt crisis plaguing Europe.

Chan said quantitative easing is not a panacea, but it is the exact opposite of deleveraging. In the past three years, quantitative easing had limited stimulating effect on the real economy. "In order to solve the structural imbalances built up in the past two decades, we must get to the bottom of the problem."

There is a possibility that quantitative easing produces the desired results, which is a very desirable scenario as global economy will return to its normal growth path, he noted.

However, there is a possibility that the process of deleveraging is disrupted by quantitative easing, leading to sharp increases in asset prices in the first place. Yet, since such increases are not supported by economic fundamentals, any increase in wealth will be seen as transient.

As a result, households are unwilling to increase spending and in the end, the real economy fails to rebound, if inflationary pressure builds up alongside asset price increases, central banks may consider exiting the market and raise interest rates, the authority's head said.

When economic performance, inflation or monetary policy falls short of market expectation, asset prices might drop sharply and remain volatile, he added.

Chan said he was certain that since the outlook for macro economic and financial environment is very uncertain, it is highly possible that large fund inflows and outflows as well as sharp fluctuations in the financial markets will continue to be seen.

"We should all take precautionary measures and get to the bottom of the problem, learn from others' experiences and avoid overstretching ourselves. Otherwise, we may find ourselves being trapped in the debt abyss with no way out," he said.
 
Helicopter QE will never be reversed

Helicopter QE will never be reversed
Readers of the Daily Telegraph were right all along. Quantitative easing will never be reversed. It is not liquidity management as claimed so vehemently at the outset. It really is the same as printing money.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
7:49PM BST 03 Apr 2013

Columbia Professor Michael Woodford, the world's most closely followed monetary theorist, says it is time to come clean and state openly that bond purchases are forever, and the sooner people understand this the better.

"All this talk of exit strategies is deeply negative," he told a London Business School seminar on the merits of Helicopter money, or "overt monetary financing".

He said the Bank of Japan made the mistake of reversing all its money creation from 2001 to 2006 once it thought the economy was safely out of the woods. But Japan crashed back into deeper deflation as soon the Lehman crisis hit.

"If we are going to scare the horses, let's scare them properly. Let's go further and eliminate government debt on the bloated balance sheet of central banks," he said. This could done with a flick of the fingers. The debt would vanish.

Lord Turner, head of the now defunct Financial Services Authority, made the point more delicately. "We must tell people that if necessary, QE will turn out to be permanent."

The write-off should cover "previous fiscal deficits", the stock of public debt. It should be "post-facto monetary finance".

The policy is elastic, for Lord Turner went on to argue that central banks in the US, Japan and Europe should stand ready to finance current spending as well, if push comes to shove. At least the money would go straight into the veins of the economy, rather than leaking out into asset bubbles.

Today's QE relies on pushing down borrowing costs. It is "creditism". That is a very blunt tool in a deleveraging bust when nobody wants to borrow.

Lord Turner says the current policy has become dangerous, yielding ever less returns, with ever worsening side-effects. It would be better for central banks to put the money into railways, bridges, clean energy, smart grids, or whatever does most to regenerate the economy.

The policy can be "wrapped" in such a way as to preserve central bank independence. The Fed or the Bank of England would decide when enough is enough, or what the proper pace should be, just as they calibrate every tool. That at least is the argument. I merely report it.

Lord Turner knows this breaks the ultimate taboo, and that taboos evolve for sound anthropological reasons, but he invokes the doctrine of the lesser evil. "The danger in this environment is that if we deny ourselves this option, people will find other ways of dealing with deflation, and that would be worse."

A breakdown of the global trading system might be one, armed conquest or Fascism may be others - or all together, as in the 1930s.

There were two extreme episodes of money printing in the inter-war years. The Reichsbank's financing of Weimar deficits from 1922 to 1924 - like lesser variants in France, Belgium and Poland - is well known. The result was hyperinflation. Clever people made hay. The slow-witted - or the patriotic - lost their savings. It was a poisonous dichotomy.

Less known is the spectacular success of Takahashi Korekiyo in Japan in the very different circumstances of the early 1930s. He fired a double-barreled blast of monetary and fiscal stimulus together, helped greatly by a 40pc fall in the yen.

The Bank of Japan was ordered to fund the public works programme of the government. Within two years, Japan was booming again, the first major country to break free of the Great Depression. Within three years, surging tax revenues allowed Mr Korekiyo to balance the budget. It was magic.
This is more or less the essence of "Abenomics", the three-pronged attack on deflation by Japan's new premier and Great Power revivalist Shinzo Abe.

Stephen Jen from SLJ Macro Partners says Western analysts have been strangely slow to understand the breathtaking scale of what is under way. The Bank of Japan is already committed to bond purchases of $140bn a month in 2014. This is almost double the US Federal Reserve's net purchases (around $75bn a month), and five times as much as a share of GDP.

Prof Woodford and Lord Turner both think the Fed has already begun to monetise America's deficits, though Ben Bernanke has been studiously vague whenever pressed in testimony on Capitol Hill. These are early days. It is tentative and deniable.

The great hope is that this weird episode will soon be behind us, and that such shock therapy will never be needed in the end. If stock markets tell the truth, the world economy is already healing itself. Another full cycle of global growth is safely under way.

But stock markets are a bad barometer at the onset of every crisis, not least the blistering rally of late 1929, a full year after the world economy had tipped into commodity deflation.

The Reuters CRB commodity index has been falling steadily for the past six months. Copper futures have dropped 10pc since mid-February. This is nothing like the early months of the great global boom a decade ago.

The bull case rests on US recovery, a seductive story as the housing market comes back to life and the shale boom revives the US chemical industry.

Yet the US money supply figures are no longer flashing buy signals. The M2 money stock has contracted over the past three months, and M2 velocity has dropped to the lowest ever recorded at 1.54.

The country must navigate a fiscal squeeze worth 2.5pc of GDP over the rest of the year, arguably the biggest fiscal shock in half a century. Five key indicators have been soft over the past week, with the ADP jobs index coming in much weaker than expected on Wednesday. Growth is below the Fed's "stall speed" indicator, an annualized two-quarter rate of 2pc.

The buoyancy over the past quarter has been flattered by a collapse in the US savings rate to pre-Lehman depths of 2.6pc, and while falling saving is what the world needs, it is not what America needs. Thrifty Asians are the people who must spend if we are to right the collosal imbalances in the global system.

The world savings rate is still climbing to fresh records above 25pc. For all the talk of change in China, Beijing is still pursuing a mercantilist policy. It is still flooding the world with excess goods. It is still shoveling cheap credit into its shipbuilding industry, adding to the glut. It is still keeping its solar industry on life-support.

China remains chronically reliant on global markets. Given that its trade surplus is rising again, it is questionable whether China is adding any net demand to the world.

The eurozone, Britain and an ever widening circle of countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans are mired in recession. Growth is expected to be just 2pc in Russia and 3pc in Brazil this year.

My fear - hopefully wrong - is that recovery will falter over the second half, leaving the developed world trapped in a quasi-slump, a sort of grey zone of zero growth that goes on and on, with debt trajectories ratcheting up.

The Dallas Fed's PCE index of core inflation has already dropped to 1.1pc over the past six months. The eurozone's core gauge has fallen to 1.5pc. A dozen EMU countries already have one foot in deflation with flat or contracting nominal GDP. Another shock will tip them over the edge into a deflationary slide.

If Lord Turner's helicopters are ever needed, we can be sure that the Anglo-Saxons and the Japanese will steal a march, while Europe will be the last to move. The European Central Bank will resist monetary financing of deficits until the bitter end, knowing that such action risks destroying German political consent for the euro project.

By holding the line on orthodoxy, the ECB will guarantee that Euroland continues to suffer the deepest depression. Once the dirty game begins, you stand aside at your peril.

A great many readers in Britain and the US will be horrified that this helicopter debate is taking place at all, as if the QE virus is mutating into ever more deadly strains.

Bondholders across the world may suspect that Britain, the US and other deadbeat states are engineering a stealth default on sovereign debts, and they may be right in a sense. But they are warned. This is the next shoe to drop in the temples of central banking.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...294/Helicopter-QE-will-never-be-reversed.html
 
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WJaW32ZTyKE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Back
Top