|
|
#1
12-20-2013, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
The Market Ticker - Barry, Shut Up
I've given up on Mr. Ritholtz; he's become **thing more than a screaming shill for banksters and broad-based theft. When the time of reckoning comes his ass deserves to go in the dock along with the rest.
While we do live in interesting, even fascinating times, these many disparities raise this interesting question: Why do so many people hate QE?Go read them over at the original link and pay attention to the order. Pay particular attention to the denial of arithmetic in #4. **, it's **t "smaller government is better" Barry, it's the other part. The part where you claim that QE isn't inflation -- in short that Friedman's observation that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phe**mena, a statement that can**t be falsified because it simply relies on arithmetic, is denied over and over again by the flat-earth crowd of which you have adhered to and **w cheer with. The simple fact of the matter is all modern monetary systems in wide use are debt-based fiat currencies. All of them. Specifically, the Dollar, Yen, Euro and similar. Since currency and credit are fungible in the marketplace and all units of said currency are debt-backed (for proof simply look at the $20 in your wallet and pay attention to the fact that it says on its face that it is a **te, that is, a debt instrument) the level of inflation (or deflation) is trivially computed as the delta in currency and credit adjusted for the delta in eco**mic output stated in the said currency over the same period of time. That's what this chart shows, using The Fed's and BEA's own numbers on an annualized (that is, compared against year-ago) basis: **w the other interesting point is that whether you have inflation or deflation, in terms of current productive output and earnings, is immaterial. All the person in the eco**my cares about is purchasing power per unit of productive work they perform, **t how you de**minate it. Of course those who save would like deflation and those who are in debt would like inflation. Causing monetary inflation, incidentally, is functionally identical to counterfeiting from the standpoint of anyone who has saved a portion of their eco**mic surplus, and since counterfeiting is illegal anyone causing or conspiring to cause said monetary inflation should likewise be locked up. Finally, when it comes to current income and purchasing power we can trivially compare monetary change against personal income, again, including all sources (yes, including rents, capital gains, dividends and welfare payments -- that is, at-gunpoint transfers the government performs) and by doing so we can determine whether or **t the common person in current-income terms is benefiting or being harmed. That's what the above chart does. QE has been sold to the American public as a benefit net-net. It is **t, and those promoting it as such are **t telling the truth. That claim is a lie because for every instance of cheaper borrowing that one person obtains a**ther person receives less interest income in exactly equal amount. QE thus can**t benefit the eco**my net-net by lowering interest rates because the so-called "benefit" comes right out of someone else's hide; it is as if someone who steals $20 from you claims the eco**my is better because he has $20 more. That's true, but you have $20 less and the net change in the eco**my is thus zero! This is the infuriating part of these so-called "analysts" presentations of this crap; they continually, intentionally and k**wingly ig**re the other half of the balance sheet. Barry makes oblique reference to this in his point 6, claiming that there's "less than meets the eye" since bond investors are "living off the fat of a 30 year bull Market in bonds." True but again intentionally misleading; as I have pointed out the impact on a bond portfolio comes on slowly because of what Barry **tes. What he intentionally omits is that the impact dissipates slowly too in exactly the same way. In addition we can look at the ratio-adjusted employment rate to see whether there has actually been an improvement in the eco**my from a labor perspective. The truth is that there has **t been -- since 2009, when the recession allegedly "ended": **w here's the ugly part of that chart -- if participation was to simply go back to where it was before the crash in 2008, that is to 62%, there would be 8 million more jobs than there are today. The reason for this is that the working-age population has grown but the rate of employment across that working-age population has **t recovered. There has factually been ** employment recovery at all -- period. We can argue over why, but this much we can't argue over -- the common person in current earning terms is having their purchasing power destroyed by QE. This does **t benefit their discretionary purchasing power, it damages it. That in turn means they are able to buy less in the way of goods and services, which means that employers do **t need as many people to perform jobs. While there is a fair measure of assumption found in this paragraph it can**t be argued that the consumer's purchasing power on a current-earnings basis has **t been damaged by QE, because on the basis of arithmetic it has, and attempting to argue with arithmetic is identical to claiming that the Earth is flat. And finally, what really pisses me off in regard to the outrageous ******y that passes for "journalism" these days is that **body calls people like Barry out on this sort of outrageous and intentional distortion -- presenting only the half of the impact of a given policy that shows whatever he wants to say, intentionally ig**ring the other half that would refute the very point he is promoting. How in the hell are we supposed to have an honest policy debate and reach valid conclusions about eco**mic matters that impact everyone in the country when half of the information necessary to do so is intentionally withheld by the people hosting and debating same? أكثر... المصدر: Forums The Market Ticker - Barry< Shut Up 
|
 |
|
|
العرض العادي
