Tuesday 26 April 2011
Wall Street Journal - "Recognition phase"
Editorial in the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983704576277431813826152.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
"The solution to the problem is equally simple. First, in order to limit Fed discretion, the dollar must be made convertible to a weight unit of gold by congressional statute—at a price that preserves the level of nominal wages in order to avoid the threat of deflation. Second, the government must at the same time be prohibited from financing its deficit at the Fed or in the banks—both at home or abroad. Third, only in the free market for true savings—undisguised by inflationary new Federal Reserve money and banking system credit—will interest rates signal to voters the consequences of growing federal government deficits."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983704576277431813826152.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
"The solution to the problem is equally simple. First, in order to limit Fed discretion, the dollar must be made convertible to a weight unit of gold by congressional statute—at a price that preserves the level of nominal wages in order to avoid the threat of deflation. Second, the government must at the same time be prohibited from financing its deficit at the Fed or in the banks—both at home or abroad. Third, only in the free market for true savings—undisguised by inflationary new Federal Reserve money and banking system credit—will interest rates signal to voters the consequences of growing federal government deficits."
Saturday 16 April 2011
Meanwhile in the land of OZ...the Wizard shows us...price gravity does exist in Australian housing...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/melbourne-home-property-prices-plunge/story-fn6bfkm6-1226039937945
sentiment has turned/is turning...game over....RBA may even have to drop rates later this year...Aussie dollar gold....may be giving us a clue...
trading at $1,405...about $100 off the top...targetting $1,800 plus
http://www.goldpreciousmetals.com/charts_historic_aud.asp
sentiment has turned/is turning...game over....RBA may even have to drop rates later this year...Aussie dollar gold....may be giving us a clue...
trading at $1,405...about $100 off the top...targetting $1,800 plus
http://www.goldpreciousmetals.com/charts_historic_aud.asp
Something historic this way comes...the precious metals are shouting...
Gold at $1,486; Silver at $43.05...(in USD) terms on Friday 15th April in US...
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2011/4/14_Jim_Grant_-_US_Will_Resolve_Debt_by_Returning_to_Gold_Standard.html
In the above interview on Eric King's website, Jim Grant, put's a value on gold in his own style...
“To me the gold price takes the form of a very uncomplicated formula, and all you have to do is divide one by ‘n.’ And ‘n’, I’m glad you ask, ‘n’ is the world’s trust in the institution of paper money and in the capacity of people like Ben Bernanke to manage it. So the smaller ‘n’, the bigger the price. One divided by a receding number is the definition of a bull market.
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2011/4/14_Jim_Grant_-_US_Will_Resolve_Debt_by_Returning_to_Gold_Standard.html
In the above interview on Eric King's website, Jim Grant, put's a value on gold in his own style...
“To me the gold price takes the form of a very uncomplicated formula, and all you have to do is divide one by ‘n.’ And ‘n’, I’m glad you ask, ‘n’ is the world’s trust in the institution of paper money and in the capacity of people like Ben Bernanke to manage it. So the smaller ‘n’, the bigger the price. One divided by a receding number is the definition of a bull market.
Wednesday 6 April 2011
Saturday 2 April 2011
Kocherlakota...The CB has to bail out the government sometimes...there you have it!
Central Bank Independence and Sovereign DefaultNarayana Kocherlakota - President
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Wharton Conference
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 1, 2011
exerpt below...
More subtly, regardless of the FA’s solvency, sovereign debt issues can fail simply through a co-ordination failure among investors. If I, as an investor, don’t anticipate that others will buy into the debt issue, I won’t either. In this sense, sovereign debt issues may be susceptible to suboptimal “runs”. The CB can eliminate this possibility by ensuring the nominal promises of the FA whenever the FA is threatened with default.
Thus, I see trade-offs. On the one hand, the CB is known to be willing to intervene to keep the FA solvent, then inflation is necessarily shaped by fiscal considerations and by the short-run incentives of elected officials. We know from many years of theoretical and empirical research that this effect is not a desirable one. On the other hand, if the CB is fully committed to allow the FA to default if necessary, then even optimal debt management by the FA may end up exposing the country to troubling risks.
Let me wrap up. I’ve argued that even if the fiscal authority borrows exclusively in its country’s own currency, the central bank can have a large amount of control over the price level. But the central bank can only achieve that control if it is willing to commit to letting the fiscal authority default. Such a commitment may expose the country to risks of short-term and medium-term output losses. How this trade-off should best be resolved awaits future research. But I suspect that it may be optimal for central banks to guarantee fiscal authority debts in some situations. If so, we again have to think of price level determination as something that is done jointly by the fiscal authority and the central bank — just as Sargent and Wallace taught us 30 years ago.
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Wharton Conference
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 1, 2011
exerpt below...
More subtly, regardless of the FA’s solvency, sovereign debt issues can fail simply through a co-ordination failure among investors. If I, as an investor, don’t anticipate that others will buy into the debt issue, I won’t either. In this sense, sovereign debt issues may be susceptible to suboptimal “runs”. The CB can eliminate this possibility by ensuring the nominal promises of the FA whenever the FA is threatened with default.
Thus, I see trade-offs. On the one hand, the CB is known to be willing to intervene to keep the FA solvent, then inflation is necessarily shaped by fiscal considerations and by the short-run incentives of elected officials. We know from many years of theoretical and empirical research that this effect is not a desirable one. On the other hand, if the CB is fully committed to allow the FA to default if necessary, then even optimal debt management by the FA may end up exposing the country to troubling risks.
Let me wrap up. I’ve argued that even if the fiscal authority borrows exclusively in its country’s own currency, the central bank can have a large amount of control over the price level. But the central bank can only achieve that control if it is willing to commit to letting the fiscal authority default. Such a commitment may expose the country to risks of short-term and medium-term output losses. How this trade-off should best be resolved awaits future research. But I suspect that it may be optimal for central banks to guarantee fiscal authority debts in some situations. If so, we again have to think of price level determination as something that is done jointly by the fiscal authority and the central bank — just as Sargent and Wallace taught us 30 years ago.
we, the sheeple get fleeced...
If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.
It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)