1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/7416/speaking-of-scary-charts/

Speaking of scary charts

November 8, 2007 by

{ 22 comments }

Fephisto November 8, 2007 at 5:06 pm

This is what we call class.

Contrarian Investors' Journal November 8, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Australia’s growth in M3 money supply is just as scary: Degradation of Australia’s fiat paper money

Mike November 8, 2007 at 9:47 pm

Oh, c’mon Jeffrey. Didn’t hear Mr. Bernanke today? “Move along, nothing to see here…”

Brent November 8, 2007 at 10:53 pm

“Inflation only makes imports more expensive.”
-Money Quote

Of course, he IS correct in his worldview… I’m going outside now to watch for the helicopter.

Paul Grad November 8, 2007 at 11:19 pm

Bernanke explained it away as people selling riskier assets and putting the money in the bank. But people are worried about the U.S.banks, (at least, that is what their stock performance is telling us), so that would be the last place they’d put any assets over 100K.

banker November 9, 2007 at 3:51 am

So if everyone’s income has stayed roughly the same for the past 10 years (80-90% of Americans), but the money supply (zero maturity or “cash”) has doubled, where did the new money go?

Not to mention all this new money probably entered the economy in the form of shady mortgage loans. It seems like a few people made a lot of money…

Nevertheloss November 9, 2007 at 5:43 am

I’m going right from the helicopter to the tulip bulb broker.

George Gaskell November 9, 2007 at 8:40 am

So if everyone’s income has stayed roughly the same for the past 10 years (80-90% of Americans), but the money supply (zero maturity or “cash”) has doubled, where did the new money go?

The stock and housing markets, mostly.

kurt November 9, 2007 at 8:58 am

And China. The only reason things aren’t worse as of yet, is because the Chinese accept a lower real income for the moment. Can you imagine what would happen if one billion Chinese would actually know what their government and central bank is doing to them?

David Spellman November 9, 2007 at 9:33 am

Can you imagine what would happen if one billion Chinese would actually know what their government and central bank is doing to them?

Let me take a wild guess–the Chinese government might have to revive the strategy of killing them by the tens of millions to maintain control?

Robert M. November 9, 2007 at 10:22 am

I guess the beauty of it is that, sure they have tons of dollars but if they sink our economy, they lose their biggest consumer. So surely they want a non-protectionist, non-ruin the economy (as bad as hillary would) president, so they flex their military might a little, scare the American’s into voting for a big military candidate who is also non-protectionist.

Of course eventually they get more consumers elsewhere and they turn the US into Brazil. Unfortunately, we’re a Brazil with a large army and people who say, “Those yella’ men ruint’ our ‘conomy, lets attack ‘em.” So WWIII. But at least we free Tibet.

8 November 9, 2007 at 10:29 am

Bernanke explained it away as people selling riskier assets and putting the money in the bank. But people are worried about the U.S.banks, (at least, that is what their stock performance is telling us), so that would be the last place they’d put any assets over 100K.

I’ve been stockpiling cash in short-term savings online waiting for stocks to decline. I’m not in the market for a house, but if I was I’d be doing the same thing, waiting for prices to drop. If on the other side of the ledger, fewer loans are being written, Bernanke’s explanation is not so crazy.

M2 is a better measure.

Robert M. November 9, 2007 at 11:32 am

I think Ron Paul should challenge Bernanke to a public debate. That would be awesome.

Anthony November 9, 2007 at 11:47 am

And about as likely to happen as Al Gore debating his position.

Robert M. November 9, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Yes very true, it seems people don’t accept constructive critism when they know they are wrong.

8 November 9, 2007 at 3:08 pm

If you parse Bernanke’s words, he doesn’t disagree with Paul. He says the Congressional mandate is low inflation AND full employment. Change the mandate and Bernanke will change policy.

8 November 9, 2007 at 3:10 pm

I should add, if Bernanke followed Paul’s correct advice now, he would lose his job and be replaced by someone who would push CTRL-P over and over. Maybe a monkey. It doesn’t matter.

Alex K. November 10, 2007 at 9:26 am

Bernanke explained it away as people selling riskier assets and putting the money in the bank.

So the idea is that people have been doing this at an accelerating rate since 1995?

DickF November 10, 2007 at 9:32 am

Can you imagine what would happen if one billion Chinese would actually know what their government and central bank is doing to them?

Kurt,

You do realize that the Chinese in general are better off today than in past years? The problem the Chinese government will have is when the people realize the freedom they have been given is only a drop in the bucket, but their prosperity is the greatest threat to the US. We are headed toward a controlled economy while the Chinese are liberalizing their economy. You should be more worried about the trend in the US rather than the trend in China.

G November 10, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Chinese liberty is a threat to the US? How does it harm me if the Chinese are free?

I’d rather them be free. They make great products.

banker November 10, 2007 at 5:41 pm

“…greatest threat to the US”-quote

I think he meant it is a threat to politicians with global aspirations. I must say what is happening now in the US is very, shall we say, romanesque…

Mark Humphrey November 11, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Jeffrey: Here’s a friendly suggestion about properly distinguishing between money and near-non-money. MZM and M2 each contain large components, such as money market mutual funds, that are not money. MMMFs are not money because A) they are investments for which one gives up one’s bank depository money in exchange; and B) to count them as money, one necessarily falls into “double counting”, of the MMMF balance and of the demand deposits exchanged for the MMMF investment.

This sounds preachy, but read Frank Shostak’s articles that make sound distinctions between “credit transactions” and deposit transactions.

I watch two measures of money. First, I watch the Monetary base, because its the only measure of M the Fed directly controls. (this courtesy of Gary North, who really accomplished at money watching)
Secondly, I watch Shostak’s Austrian Money Supply (whenever the good Dr. Shostak chooses to publish updates to his statistical series.) In lieu of the AMS, I watch narrow money–M1, though this is distorted downward, apparently, by institutional changes.

Anyway, a realistic counting of money creation over the past couple years explains why stock and real estate prices are crumbling: money has been moderately tight for nearly two years (the base growing at roughly 2%) and decelerating since the start of 2004. Go to the St. Louis Fed website and peruse their charts.

Of course, at some point the Fed will be “forced” to inflate with abandon. For now, however, rising inflation is not an imminent threat in the US.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: