Quote below is part of my posts here:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?136309-Tapering-the-Taper&p=3131442 Now even the Fed is indirectly admitting it can't return its balance sheet to normal – i.e. now claiming the there is no need to. Effectively claiming a new normal where it can print thin-air money forever. Others (China and/or the bond vigilantes) will soon show that is false. Just a few days ago Janett Yellen told Congress that the US economy was still weak and needed continue stimulus. Yet the taper is to continue! The Fed in all probablility has recently clandestinely pulled off the biggest money laundry job in History. I. e. enabled tiny Belgium to buy in three months more Treasury paper than it total GDP for those three months. Brazil was the third largest national holder of Treasury paper, but Belgium has jumped well ahead of Brazil now. * Some country, probably Russia, took 140 billion dollars out of a US foreign custody account in ONE DAY! Fed needed to show that this was not the start of a run on the dollar – did so by helping Belgium to buy 141.2 billion making an net gain of foreign holdings of 1.2 billion but the facts will soon come out. PS: I admit I lost my post 100 bet that the QE buying would not continue to decrease - The Fed found a hidden way to actually increase the QE buying of treasury paper, via money laundering. Hell, if the Fed will slip me 100 billion under the table I'll buy treasury bonds with it provided they let me keep the interest paid and give me a few years to quietly sell the bonds or allow me to hold them till the mature, so I can re-pay the Fed.
[SUP][/SUP] Except you have no proof of any of this. The Fed doesn't do unsecured loans. You are citing a Iranian anti American conspiracy site.
If not the Fed, who lent Belgium, with its chronic deficits, 142.2 Billion dollars to buy in three months more than 100% of it GDP earning in those three months? Someone sure did and the Fed is the only one wanting (& needing) to stimulate (clandestinely) as it officially "tapers." You are up to your standard trips - attack my source, not the facts. Please document your claim my source is an "Iranian anti American conspiracy site", but many have told the same story. For example here is the Financial Times of London {another Iranian anti American conspiracy site no doubt Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! } telling same thing in other words and also speculating about who might have been the source: * Note that according to FT, China has managed to get rid of 1.30-1.27 trillion = 60 billion dollars of Treasury promises in less than half a year. Yes the answer to my question about where the 142.2 billion came from, conceivably, but very implausible, is China lent Belgium the 142.2 Billion, not the Fed, but China has no reason to do that as it is getting out of Treasury paper as fast as it can, given that it earns a huge amount of dollars (>300 billion in 2013) every year. It ain't easy to wisely spend a dollar flux of 300 billion /year! I have many posts telling what China is doing with the dollar surplus it gains in trade with the US. - Namely as it thinks, as most central banks do now, holding US Treasury's paper promises is a very bad investment. China and most central banks are buying gold (In net have increased their holding of gold for more than three years.) China however can only buy a little more than 1000 tons per year as to do more would drive the price of gold to the moon. China wants and is buying all the gold it can but being careful to get it at less than $1250/ oz. In 2013 China trade surplus with US was a little more than 300 Billion dollars and they were able to buy real, not paper, assets with all but 7% of it, which they parked in US treasury paper. For example, added to their ownerships of gold and other mineral resources, still in the ground, bought large food suppliers like Smithfield Hams, and farm land, made large paid up front long term (up to 30 years) delivery contracts, like the one made with PetroBras about 4 years ago, I happen to know the details of: 10 billion dollars given for the promise of 200,000 barrels of oil (daily average) delivered for 20 years. As China does not want to hold more dollar assets, it is highly improbable they would clandestinely do so via Belgium. That leaves the Fed as the ONLY plausible lender of 142.2 billion to Belgium. Further more the Fed has good reason to launder money buying Treasuries as it does not want to admit that it can not actually reduce the buying of Treasury paper, or let it be known that it is already buying ~85% of all new issue. That the Fed needs to increase the buying of Treasury paper, not taper, the production of thin-air money used in buying Treasury paper became more clear for all to see today: I.e. one more quarter like the first of 2014 and we are officially back recession.If you think C. Schwab is also an "another Iranian anti American conspiracy site no doubt" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Here is the US government's BEA's statement of fact 1Q14's GDP fell 1%:
Well no, it isn’t, and you have no proof the Fed made and extraordinarily large loan to Belgium or anyone else for that matter. What you have is a claim from a specious web site. As I have told you many times before, start using credible sources and you won’t need to worry about my debunking them. Yes people, investors, were concerned about the drop in rates, but not for nefarious conspiratorial reasons you ascribe. Money was coming into the US as it typically does when investors get fearful. The question was why were investors scared? And the most logical answer was the Russian – Ukrainian crisis. Sanctions could have caused a weak Europe to fall back into recession. YOU HAVE NO PROOFS. WHAT YOU HAVE IS A LOT OF CONSPIRACY WITH NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP ANY OF IT. Yeah you have many posts, but most of them make absolutely no sense. Your claims are frequently inconsistent. Foreign money wouldn’t be flowing into US Treasuries if foreigners didn’t want to hold them and perceived them as a “bad” investment. The US Dollar wouldn’t be the reserve currency if US Treasuries were perceived as “a bad investment”. Well again, you have no evidence or a properly reasoned conclusion. China wants more US Dollars because it wants more trade. It wants more income. China’s inflation rate is higher than the US and China’s economy is slowing. And the Fed has no reason to “launder money” and every reason to be transparent. The Fed’s books are open and audited by not only Congress but independent auditors. And I am well aware of your doom and gloom prognostications about a run on the dollar come this October. But again, it is based on nonsense. The Q1 numbers were the result of inclement weather. Stock markets are at record highs. They wouldn't be there if investors envisioned a recession.
No I have and quoted the Financial Times of London also telling of the huge buy by Belgium. - More than their total GDP earned during their buying period - are you calling them a only a "specious web site" ? (Instead of your earlier "Iranian anti American conspiracy site.") ? As Belgium can not print dollars it is obvious that they got them from somewhere. (and certainly not via trade - Belgium runs a chronic trade deficit.) To avoid looking silly or at best just ignorant, you need to address the FACT THAT SOME ONE GAVE BELGIUM FUNDS TO BUY ~142.2 BILLION DOLLARS IN US TREASURY BONDS. If you don't think it was the Fed, who then? Attacking sources does not make the facts go away.
Except that isn't what the Financial Times said. The Financial Times doesn't support your assertions.
Not those exact words true. Here are their words exactly: " Belgium, whose reported pile of Treasuries has more than doubled from $180bn last October to a current level of $381bn." 381 - 180 = 201 billion (larger than 142 billion but FT was using larger than a three month period in which the treasury holding changed by 142.2 billion.) I would not complain if you instead tell how Belgium could buy 201 billion in 5 months without some one advancing them the money. Brazil was country with the third largest holding of US treasury paper until Belgium suddenly jumped into that third position. Lets speculate on the facts, (Where did the funds come from?), not speak ill of sources, especially not London's most reputable financial newspaper! Belgium's end of month holding of US Treasury bonds in Billions (and change from prior month) : Mar14, 381.4 Up 40.2 Feb14, 341.2 Up 30.9 Jan14, 310.3 Up 53.5 Dec13, 256.8 Up 56.2 Nov13, 200.6 Up 20.3 Oct13, 180.3 Average monthly buying for five month is slightly more than 34 billion dollars/ month with a two month increase of: 53.5 + 56.2 = 109.7 billion in only 62 days! * Where did the money come from if not the Fed? Data above from: http://www.treasury.gov/ticdata/Publish/mfh.txt Or perhaps the US Treasury is just another of my "specious web sites" and/or "Iranian anti American conspiracy sites" ? 30.9 + 53.5 + 56.2 = 140.6 not the 142 my "Iranian anti American conspiracy site" stated, big deal! They may not have used end of the month data or as difference is less than 1% it could just be they used two decimal place data. * that is 1.77 billion per day ! Belgium ended 2013 with a population of 11,162,000 people. Did Belgium passed the hat around and ever man, woman and child put 1,770,000,000 / 11,162,000 = $158.57 in it every day for 62 days? I don't believe that. I think the Fed wanted to appear as if the taper had started but knew the buying of treasury paper had to INCREASE, not drop. If that is true it is the largest money laundering job in history. With GDP falling 1% in 1Q14, the Fed knew it could not really reduce buying / stimulation. They will not be able to hide the truth - what they are doing much longer - I'm not the only person who can do simple math.
Well here is one of your problems. Your credible sources are incongruous with your specious sources. Your credible sources do not validate or in any way support your assertions or those made by your dubious source. There is no evidence of a secret Federal Reserve conspiracy. There is no evidence of secret loans to buy Treasuries. There is no evidence of Federal Reserve shenanigans. If the Fed were trying to be underhanded and secret as you and your conspiratorial Iranian web site alleged, why would they publish evidence of their crime? Do you really think the folks at the Fed are that dumb? The source of your machinations is the data the Fed published and a conspiratorial anti-American website which uses that data to invent a fictitious conspiracy. A foreign holder of US debt could be any of a number of sources. It could be an actual government. It could be a central bank. It could be any number of individual private banks, businesses and individuals or some combination of all the above. In the case of Belgium, it doesn’t have a central bank. It is a member of the European Union. And the Belgium government didn’t report it held US Treasuries. The Federal Reserve Reported that people, businesses, banks, etc. residing in Belgium purchased “X” amount of US Treasuries. And since Belgium is a major commerce center, and during a time of international uncertainty and instability, I don’t find that unusual or remarkable or in any way noteworthy. You are also mixing income (i.e. GDP) with assets. The two are very different. They are not the same. Assets (i.e. cash, investments, etc.) are usually several multiples of income. For example, US GDP is about 16 trillion dollars. Assets on the other hand have been estimated to be around 200 trillion dollars.
Well you are one of the few who does not. Many are speculating on who was the true buyer. Yes people and firms do buy (and sell) US bonds. It is the amount bought by /thru Begium that is startling - hard to explain by, or consider, normal buying. The sum that was bought would require more than $158 coming from every man, woman and Belgium child not just once but every day for 62 day (those two months) ! That is not creditable nor is any alternative which collects the same total amount from any combination of Belgium people and corporations. Where did $109.7 BILLION come from in two months? Certainly not from Belgium people or corporations.
Well, given markets just hit another all-time high, I'd say you are the guy holding the minority opinion. And considering that between 300 and 500 of billion dollars of US Treasuries are traded every day, 109 billion over 2 months really isn't that much. And neither the Belgium GDP or population is relevant to this discussion.
LOL.... you may or may not be able to see that teeny tiny sliver, that's the bottom 50%. Yes, you can always tell a Social Progressive when you see one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Welcome to the New Economy Life in the good ole' USSA - moo moo moo all you like, but at the end of the day, you will pay your Farmers / owners your milk and meat, they will let you out every now and again to pull the magic lever Right or Left, and then waddle back to your tax-pen you go.
Well here is that nasty rub again, there is absolutely nothing in your libertarian ideology which Will remedy that problem. It's important to note the growth in income inequality is the direct result of the rise of American conservatism.
You live in La La land Joe. Let me guess, it was "American conservatism" that also led to Japan having 30 years of stagnation. It was "American Conservationism" that led to the total mess of an economy Europe is in. Was it "American Conservatism" that collapsed Icelands' economy? Bill Clinton was POTUS from 1993 - 2001. Now, take a good look at the chart again. You live in Pixie Land like a little Disney Princess. Well, you're in lucky, this is the New Economy - and it's here to stay.
No Joe, you live in a Pixie-Fairy tower where the Disney King and Queen / Central Planners saved / Sloganed us out of "The Great Recession". Here's the real world, the hyper-regulated one that sold out it's civil liberties for promises of fiat debt. Yours was the most wealthiest generation of humans that ever lived. You gobbled your way through the earths natural resources leaving us with your pollution, 5 generations of debts and a possible ecological collapse to go along with your multiple phony wars. Your children will live poorer than you. Well, maybe not "your's" in particular. No no no, like any good "Social Progressive" I'm sure you've lined the ole' family nest just fine for you and yours. I mean, hey, that's only 'fair' - right? Take a good long look Millennials, THIS is the New Economy your grandparents left for you - and it isn't going anywhere. So long as you let your grandparents take you to the cleaners, they WILL eat your lunch and you ARE going to be poorer. I'd suggest taking a leaf from their book and levying a Progressive Age Tax - let them take care of their own. They have 90% of the capital - the Gods know they can afford it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Note that Clinton took office as POTUS in 1993. Hey, maybe his ding-bat wife Hitlary can demagogue her way to POTUS in 2016.
LOL, well Michael if you only understood the data you use perhaps you could make a cogent argument. Instead you allow yourself to become distracted with shinny baubles and as a result you are constantly chasing your tail rather than effecting any meaningful change. Yeah, the US does have a problem with income and wealth inequality. But your Koch funded libertarian ideology isn't going to fix that. Playing identity politics while letting the real culprits (i.e. your beloved Koch brothers) walk Scott free isn't going to solve the problem. Giving the keys to the nation to your Koch brother buddies isn't going to make things better for average folk. It will do the exact opposite. The problem isn't the poor pensioner or the poor aged invalid. And your solution, dumping them in the streets isn't all that attractive either. I suggest you visit the undeveloped world. It will quickly put an end to you libertarian visions of nirvana. That is probably why you don't want to live there. As I have told you many times before, the income and wealth inequality problem began in the 80's with Ronald Reagan's "trickle down economics". It didn't work, and it has never worked. The poor pensioner or the invalid isn't the reason for the dramatic and worsening income and wealth inequality. They are the victims of it. It is the Koch brothers and the Reagans of the world who are responsible for the fiscal policies which favor the owners of capital over wage earners. And until you solve that, you can blame old people and poor people all day long, but you will not solve the income and wealth inequality problem. But you don't want to solve the real problems, you would much rather chase your tail and demagogue all day long. As I have told you many times before, what needs to be done is to lower the return of capital and increase the return on wages. That is how you fix the income and wealth inequality problem. That means wealthy people like Romney pay income taxes like your average working stiff. As long as the return of capital is higher than economic growth, the wealth and income inequality problem will only become worse, no matter how many pensioners or how many invalids we have. And we don't change that equation unless we get a government which is willing to tax the owners of capital. And we cannot get that until we stop folks like you from chasing your tails and doing something meaningful and productive and get a government that represents the needs of the common man.
No, my 'solution' is a return of civil liberties, freedoms protected by the US constitution, eliminating labor tax and returning to sound money and law. However, as we both know Americans hate freedom, then the advice I give to freedom-hating Americans, is to stick the Babyboomres with a Progressive Age Tax that takes care of other Babyboomers. Thus, if there's a Babyboomer with some assets, tax them, then redistribute to other less well off Babyboomers until, finally, you all die off. That only seems fair. Why should Millennial, who are being crushed with your generations idiotic folly, be forced to pay for your generation's largess?! Are you insane - they have next to nothing relative to your generation. So the answer is simple, until your generations dies away, you should pay for yourselves. Stop stealing from your grandchildren Joe. Today, people in their 20s and 30s (Generations X and Y) have accumulated less wealth than their parents when they were the same age about 25 years ago. The average wealth of 20- and 30-year-olds in 2010 was 7 percent below that of those in their 20s and 30s in 1983. Change in Average Household Net Worth by Age Group, 1983-2010 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Interesting data (without source given) but I assume it basically true and explain your two facts: On (1) Today's young have less wealth than those older mainly because they theirs is "salary based" not like my group (the up 149%) based on investments. I. e. as they say: "It takes money to earn money." Also part of the older group's gain is nominal, not real. I. e. they benefited in nominal terms by the declining value of the dollar. For example I bought a nice, end-unit, three bed room condo in Columbia* MD as it was just getting started (Mine was one of the first 1000 sold - thus I was a "pioneer") for $30,000 dollars. Less than 10 years later, I sold it for $120,000 to build the big custom built house my wife wanted. She was Norwegian, but became excessively Americanized (very materialistic) - So we went our separate ways. After living a few years, in that big house on 3/4 acre lot adjoining Columbia, but not in its special tax district but we did not divorce so she could remain under my cheap job related medical insurance plain for more than a decade. Then about a decade later she returned to Norway and was covered by their good, almost free health care system. In the divorce settlement I gave her the house and she me 16 acres of land along side of I-95 I had bought in her name as "life insurance" in case I died so she could pay for our kids education later. She sold that house for $320,000 so my original 30K home investment (and used) grew nearly 11 fold. We retired (me 20 years now) and even the 10,000/ day "baby boomers" retiring now picked a very good time to get born. Today's (Generations X and Y) were not so clever, but not nearly as stupid as the currently being born already in debt about $55,000 dollars each, if born in the USA. On (2) That difference in between the same age groups now and earlier is mainly due to the change that also occurred. I. e. the earlier group went to work in a growing economy with salaries rapidly rising in real terms, not static. There was a shortage of skilled workers, both good manager and those with technically skills - easy not only to get a great job straight out of college but also to move up to higher paying one. Companies were even paying "signing bonuses" as they now are in China. That has all changed - far from true for the current Generations X and Y as US is on the way down as world's economic leader. * I had been an apartment renter for 4 years, saving 2/3 of my good pay salary but then I saw mortgage rates starting to rise, so in only one week-end of intensive search, bought into the Columbia idea. Columbia is now a city of at least 130,000 residents and adjoining it as part of the urban area are at least twice as many. I bet the house my wife sold, is a million dollar home now as it does not pay Columbia taxes yet from the back yard, I could throw a rock across the tiny boundary creek over the Columbia bike path, assuming it was a lucky throw and made it thru the tall tree forest.
And what does that mean exactly? It means giving the keys to the kingdom to those responsible for the tremendous shift in income and wealth inequality; let them do whatever they want whenever they want. And it has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has everything to do with identity politics and special interest money. No Americans by and large love freedom and they love opportunity. Here is some reality for you Michael; you want the Baby Boomers to pay not only for themselves but also for their parents. You don’t want to pay for anything. You don’t want to pay for all the things your parents and grandparents have provided to you. You just want to take. You are a selfish spoiled child. And just what is my generation’s folly exactly? You cannot say with any degree of credibility. All you can do is demagogue the issue, just like you demagogue everything else. You have no evidence. You have no logical argument. What you have are lies. Identity politics worked well for Hitler, but I don’t think that is going to play well here. I’m not stealing from anyone. And I don’t have grandchildren - damn minor details again. Well you have no proof of that. A chart from an unnamed source really doesn’t account for much. I can make up charts too, that doesn’t mean they are real or meaningful. And we have been down this road before too. Older folks have more money for several reasons. One, they have been working longer. They have been saving longer. They are more experienced, more knowledgeable, and a little wiser. They are not raising children or running around getting married and divorced – which is a pretty expensive venture. And most of their assets and income are derived from capital as opposed to wages. Older folks are more capitalistic. They are capitalists in the truest sense of the word. There is a problem in this country. The extreme income and wealth inequality will, if unchecked, lead to social instability. The return on capital cannot continue to be greater than economic growth. Just like our healthcare system before Obamacare, the wealth and income inequality is unsustainable. At some point it will break. And it won’t be pretty when it does (e.g. Louise XVI). Now here is the irony, the people responsible for that inequality are the folks who financially sponsor your libertarian ideology. You are just a fool doing the work of your master…a puppet on a string. You are immune to evidence and reason.
I was curious as to the source too, so pretended to edit Michael's post. It comes from metrotrend blog, which is the news out let of the Urban Institute, which in turn is funded by the Ford Foundation. I know from much experience, that Joepistole's standard approach is to ignore the "facts" presented, or rarely try to dis prove them with counter referenced facts, but to attack the sources. Ford Foundation is not known for supporting highly biased organizations. Here is link to the Urban Institute's home page with brief quote from it: I was unaware of them, but will be checking there when needing some data. They don't seems to have any agenda, but to present undistorted data in very useful form. For example their blog has several sub areas, one on "economics." There I found the following two charts, which taken together tell the job picture is improving. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I.e. their latest data shows that there are ~ 4 newly created jobs for every one failing and only 1/3 of the new jobs are not still operating two years later. Hardly reflecting either false fabricated facts or ones that are designed to show the US's troubles.
