Was the bomber trying to assassinate someone in particular?
Your link refers more broadly, "The Ever-Increasing Cost of Propping Up A Fragile And Dysfunctional System." You narrowed it to "financial", which is on topic, but the same applies to other systems, e.g. medical.
Of course. Complex systems are everywhere.
Seeking Stability undermines resilience.
Consider data related to FIRE sector:
America’s period of robust economic growth coincided with FIRE sector profits being between 10 and 20 percent of total profits, and wages in the FIRE sector being below 5 percent of total wages.
The government can and should play a sincere role in ensuring no single sector becomes a parasite that wrecks the rest of the economy. However what we have today is that the government is colluding with the parasitic private sector and making the situation even worse.
There is an ever-increasing cost to propping up a fragile and a dysfunctional financial system.
My point was that there are a whole bunch of people saying that because what is happening is bad for society, it has to change. That's not the case, and your financial planning should take that into account.
Excellent point, it's essentially called pragmatism.
I'm guessing you don't know what lemon socialism is
I think what's happening in America can be appropriately termed as corporate fascism.
There are a number of different channels -- mortgage rates, I mentioned other interest rates, corporate bond rates, but also the prices of various assets, like, for example, the prices of homes. To the extent that home prices begin to rise, consumers will feel wealthier, they'll feel more -- more disposed to spend. If house prices are rising, people may be more willing to buy homes because they think that they'll, you know, make a better return on that purchase. So house prices is one vehicle. - Bernanke, Sept 2012
It is an explicit defense of reflation. So Bernanke wants it and he's getting it. Bernanke's models apparently do not tell him that Ponzi financial policies are unsustainable in the long run. They will blow up.
Patrick has the Ignore tool built for a reason :)
I agree with bmwman, 'don't feed the trolls' is usually a good guideline to follow.
Keynes stimulus and Mises austerity
Both are equally absurd with their solutions. How about Hyman Minsky and Steve Keen, who have debunked neoclassical economics?
Keynes stimulus and Mises austerity
Both are equally absurd in their solutions, because they both ignore the problem of rent.
How about Hyman Minsky and Steve Keen, who has debunked neoclassical economics.
The problem is the rent seeking is a behavior allowed by the banking cabal to make certain members of the upper middle class wealthy via unearned and rentier income.
These become the highest members of the outer party.
Not everything is because of bankers. Finance is one form of rent seeking, but there are several other forms as well.
For a proper primer on rent seeking, consider this paper.
As for your accusation on upper middle class, here's the actual data regarding income redistribution. Most gains go to the top 1%.
The Euro will implode first, but it looks like they're going to keep backing it with dollars and bonds for another 7 years as a Euro slow bust is good for the dollar, although if they don't stop marrying each other they could both go bust close to the same time.
have you seen this chart?
Euro system actually marks their gold reserves to market every quarter. You can see the rebalancing of the central bank balance sheet with gold in live action.
So I don't think the Euro will implode. The Euro was built to resolve the dollar's flaws.
Yes, it gets messy because you have to use smoke and mirrors to keep brutally expensive things expensive.
I don't think that is the causality. The causality is extreme wealth disparity, which will lead to social and civil unrest if nothing is done about it. By keeping it orderly - I meant we resolve this problem of wealth disparity without wrecking the whole economy.
Don't forget who the bad guys are again. They are the banks who create money out of thin air and cry for a government bailout whenever they make bad investments. A global default that kills mega-banks COMBINED WITH DIRECT GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OF DEPOSITS AND LENDING will result in an economic boom EXACTLY like it did in Iceland and EXACTLY like never happened (to their horror) in Ireland.
iwog - I completely agree with you.
I was saying that since politics can be disorderly, defaults tend to be disorderly, which is severely disruptive.
Deleveraging can get very disorderly if not managed properly. The real conflict is between creditors and debtors, and if there is an adult conversation - mutual consensus would be inflation and trying to keep it orderly.
Soooooooo........where's all the inflation? Or was your entire rant for no other purpose than to bitch about my "triple" comment?
"Inflation is increase in money supply" - Austrians
"Inflation is general increase in price level of goods and services" - Keynesians
"Inflation is increase in money supply accompanied by the behavioral shift among economic agents towards increased velocity, which then leads to increased price level" - Reality.
So no behavioral shift, no inflation.
The whole country is set up for banks, wall street, flippers, brokers, agents to make moe-nay. Get on board!
Bang on accurate.
That's what bankruptcy is for. Private debt is money owed to ourselves. I don't think there are severe macro-economic consequences beyond the usual problem of wealth disparity.
Destroying private debt in a disorderly fashion like a default can lead to a severe macro economic contraction, Great Depression I being a classic example.
So I think the statement "no severe macroeconomic consequences" is patently false.
Why produce wealth when you can steal it from others via printing?
The exact same question is applicable to the banker cabal as well. Finance is rent seeking through seignorage.
The only way rent seeking can be avoided is through public policy.
We are currently in a demand side crisis. Giving Americans money will cause increased production which will offset the amount of money created by growing the market. This is how the REAL economy works.
It's the private debt, stupid!
demand is destroyed because of too much debt. not the other way around.
I think you have built a trawman against Krugman and Keynesians in general. This is a common criticism of Keynes, the "robbing the economic seed corn" by a combination of deficit spending and increasing liquidity.
I don't think it is a strawman attack on Keynesians because they DO ignore debt in their models.
In particular, he asserts that putting banks in the story is essential. Now, I’m all for including the banking sector in stories where it’s relevant; but why is it so crucial to a story about debt and leverage? - Krugman on Steve Keen
The reason why the FIRE sector continues to dominate the economy is because rent seeking is rampant and encouraged. Krugman can nail the problem of rent seeking if he chooses to include debt in his models.
One thing I don't understand about American retail: the juice aisle contains dozens of juices "from concentrate" but you can't buy the concentrate.
If you want healthy food, you have to pay the price in America.
Follow that as the premise and you can understand everything.
The "from concentrate" stuff uses less concentrate and more cheap crap added into it and therefore sold at a lower cost.
Lower rates will allow riskier activity to take place, but it shouldn't cause a misallocation of resources
From the same link that I just posted:
The 'hot money' seeks beta, and that means financial paper, and frauds like collateralized debt obligations, tied to whatever hapless aspect of the real economy that is convenient, such as housing for example.
So yes, you are right. lower interest rates would encourage riskier activity that wouldn't have been taken otherwise. Who knows if this riskier activity is actually productive?
Well, we can figure out if it is likely to be productive or not, by ensuring that the firm which takes on the risk is actually punished for taking such a risk in case the venture fails. What happens in the current economy? Risk is always socialized, Finance is rent seeking through seignorage.
If you borrow a million dollars you owe a million dollars. It makes no difference how low the interest is, you have to pay the money back.
To add on to what swebb says, interest rate is the price of money. If interest rates are artificially low, then some activity can take place (even if it is totally unproductive to the real economy) which would not happen otherwise. So it does cause misallocation of resources.
Interest rate is a very important signal, but what we have today is market manipulation because the Fed is engaging in open-ended QE.
Monetary inflation without reform is the 'solution' that most favors the monied interests and the financial class given the extractive nature of the system as it is.
I fully understand what you say below:
How long should one wait for things to return to the "old normal"? 3 years? 5 years? 20 years? By that time, I'd be an old man, and my kids would be teenagers by then, nearly ready to leave for college.
I never could tell, but are you on the renter or homeowner (bear/bull) side of the battle?
Owner, but only because it makes sense. If you read Patrick's site enough, you get around to thinking that even owning is basically renting but ensuring that you minimize your losses :)
If your purchase is all cash, you're not really a debt slave, right? :)
Anyway, Congrats - hope everything goes smoothly.