|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
> publishing M3 stats last year. I would be very nervous if I was
holding
> 1.2 trillion USD in foreign exchange reserves (China), and had no
real way
> of knowing how fast the Feds were diluting my pocket money.
I don't really have an interest in a lengthy off topic discussion of
this but based on your comment you didn't seem to understand my prior
point.
Let me instead try to illustrate using some hard year-on-year growth
numbers for calender 2005, which was the last full year in which M3
was available and also corresponds with the last available audited
accounts for the Federal Reserve system: see
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual05/default.htm
2005 Growth in % and USD
------------------------
Fed total balance sheet: 4.5% - $36.9bn
Federal Reserve Notes out: 5.4% - $39bn
M1: 1% - $13.6bn (to $1.4tr)
M2: 4.6% - $294.3bn (to $6.7tr)
M3: 7.8% - $742.6bn (to $10.2tr)
If you refer back to my previous post and perhaps a good textbook on
monetary aggregates you will clearly see that the notion that the Feds
are wildly inflating M3 is completely bogus, and that they have little
control over M2 either.
You might also consider whether the decision to cease publication of
M3 statistics is in fact a tacit admission of this rather than another
element of some grand banking conspiracy.
Furthermore, if I were inclined to subscribe to a conspiracy theory of
society , I might wonder whether the barrage of misleading and
outright false anti-Fed propaganda isn't part of an elaborate
smokescreen to deflect scrutiny and oversight from the unregulated
areas in financial services that are the real culprits behind
admittedly excessive monetary expansion.
--- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Jose Silva" <josesilva22@xxx>
wrote:
>
>
> >> I don't know... printing valueless fiat (paper) money by the
truckload
> >> doesn't seem like a sound long-term policy to me, regardless of who
> >> is in monetary control.
> >
> > Well I agree with that to a large extent, but if you check the Fed's
> > balance sheet you will see that their actual contribution to monetary
> > expansion is in fact highly limited.
>
> Yes, I would indeed like to check the rate of monetary expansion, but
> alas, this is not entirely possible anymore since the Feds stopped
> publishing M3 stats last year. I would be very nervous if I was
holding
> 1.2 trillion USD in foreign exchange reserves (China), and had no
real way
> of knowing how fast the Feds were diluting my pocket money.
>
> Nevertheless, if the fiat USD expands at a rate of +10%pa, and US
GDP is
> around 2~4%pa, then eventually something has to give. Anyone here got
> change for a USD100,000 note? ;)
>
>
> jose '-)
> http://www.metastocktools.com/#USindex
>
>
>
>
> --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pastor_barr <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know... printing valueless fiat (paper) money by the
truckload
> >> doesn't seem like a sound long-term policy to me, regardless of who
> >> is in monetary control.
> >
> > Well I agree with that to a large extent, but if you check the Fed's
> > balance sheet you will see that their actual contribution to monetary
> > expansion is in fact highly limited.
> >
> > In reality the truckloads of monetary aggregates created aren't even
> > printed, but are instead electronically created in areas completely
> > outside the Fed's control. This includes both unregulated and
> > extremely loosely regulated areas such as over-the-counter
> > derivatives, securitization, and large swathes of consumer finance
> > such as credit cards.
> >
> > As such the widespread focus on the Fed as the root of all monetary
> > evil is not only deeply misguided, but the usual accompanying rally
> > call for laissez-faire market and regulatory policies is laughably
> > wide of the mark and diversionary.
> >
> > > And why not let a publicly-elected government control the money
> > printing
> > > presses? Actually, given some of the decisions made by the
current US
> > > administration, perhaps that is not a good idea.
> >
> > I'm glad you said that, Jose. I recall when Richard Russell not too
> > long ago called for the abolition of the Fed system and the return of
> > full monetary control - unbridled my market discipline - to politicos,
> > it was widely acclaimed in golbug circles as an unusually innovative
> > and far-sighted proposal, instead of being condemned as a moronic idea
> > that has a singular track-record of spectacular failure.
> >
> > > As an example of what I would consider a conflict of interest, I
> > remember
> > > reading somewhere about (the previous Fed Reserve chairman) Alan
> > Greenspan
> > > giving out advice to home buyers to lock their home loans into
fixed
> > > interest rate loans.
> >
> > Conspiracy or cock up? I agree that was astonishingly bad advice, but
> > I really don't think it was due to a conflict of interest. Rather I
> > suspect what was at play was the usual systematic feature of financial
> > orthodoxy to straightline project relatively short term trends into
> > the distant horizon.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Jose Silva" <josesilva22@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for clearing that up, Pastor - I'll sleep better at night
now
> > > knowing that there is no conflict of interest at the highest
financial
> > > levels. :)
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, putting all issues of direct profits aside, isn't
there
> a
> > > danger that monetary decisions being made by a privately-owned
> printing
> > > press, may benefit some corporate members and not the public in
> > > general? ;)
> > >
> > > And why not let a publicly-elected government control the money
> > printing
> > > presses? Actually, given some of the decisions made by the
current US
> > > administration, perhaps that is not a good idea.
> > >
> > > As an example of what I would consider a conflict of interest, I
> > remember
> > > reading somewhere about (the previous Fed Reserve chairman) Alan
> > Greenspan
> > > giving out advice to home buyers to lock their home loans into
fixed
> > > interest rate loans. This advice was given just prior to the Fed's
> > > decision to drop interest rates steadily to almost historical lows.
> > >
> > > I don't know... printing valueless fiat (paper) money by the
> truckload
> > > doesn't seem like a sound long-term policy to me, regardless of who
> > is in
> > > monetary control.
> > >
> > >
> > > jose '-)
> > > http://www.metastocktools.com/#USindex
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pastor_barr <no_reply@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "The USD printing press is privately owned."
> > > >
> > > >> It's amazing the number of sites that try and point the above
> > fact, and
> > > >> disappear in the process...
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm.
> > > >
> > > > To use an - in this case unrepresentative - corporate analogy the
> > > > executive branch appoints the Fed board that takes all strategic
> > > > decisions.
> > > >
> > > > The US treasury owns the net profits of the Fed system and can
at its
> > > > sole discretion transfer said profits to the treasury or leave
them
> in
> > > > reserves.
> > > >
> > > > The "dividend" mentioned in the Fed's accounts are at a 5% fixed
> rate
> > > > on capital committed in cash to the reserve system (like a
preferred
> > > > dividend), that for the vast majority of history has not come
close
> to
> > > > covering member bank's cost of capital. In accounting this
equates
> to
> > > > interest expense, not an economic share of profits generated as
> > > > accrues to shareholders in the ordinary sense; this is a
distinction
> > > > not lost on the Fed's auditors in their statement of
departures from
> > > > accounting convention, last time I checked.
> > > >
> > > > Further, member banks can not sell any shares if they wish to
retain
> a
> > > > banking license. On the contrary, member banks are obliged to
> > > > unconditionally subscribe for new issues as determined at the sole
> > > > discretion of the politically appointed board of governors
from time
> > > > to time.
> > > >
> > > > So, while the Fed member banks are for archaic reasons known as
> > > > "shareholders" they are not private owners of the Fed in any
> > > > meaningful sense.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe that is why the sites you refer to disappeared; perhaps
people
> > > > realized they were peddling misrepresentations so egregious
that they
> > > > can only be accurately described as a pack of lies.
> > > >
> > > > Nice indicator though ;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > jose '-)
> > > > > http://www.metastocktools.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Lionel Issen" <lissen@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jose:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This link and the sub links are excellent! Too bad our
> > politicians
> > > are
> > > > > > largely illiterate and cant read them. J))
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Two sub links are unavailable
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The US Printing Press is Privately Owned
> > > > > >
> > > > > > An Anatomy of A Bear Market
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you suggest another way/place to access these items?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lionel
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:equismetastock-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:equismetastock-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
equismetastock-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|