Re: media influence

On Jan 21, 2008 6:45 PM, Bobby wrote:
> Hi
>
> Don’t you think the Media has something to do with this.

Hi, yes definitely, and it’s always that way- goes with the territory. adds to volatility.

Every time you turn on the TV, open a newspaper, read the web, it says we are in a recession or we are about to be in one etc etc. ? Or more negative things. We are bombarded with this, as are others around the world, 24/7. Like now the NY Times online feature story says Stocks Worldwide Plunge on US Recession Fears. All it does is scare the people that aren’t as smart as you or see things as you do for what they are.

True, and worse. Look at this story from earlier today:

U.S. consumers pull back on spending, worry more about debt as economy weakens

Note the title. Then, look for any evidence of a pullback on spending.

NEW YORK – Joi Freemont, a dentist in suburban Atlanta, doesn’t have to look further than her appointment book to tell that people are worried about money.

Patients who used to get their teeth whitened all the time “now want to think about it a bit,” she said. Braces? “People were getting them for the kids, for themselves, but now they’re waiting,” she added. And when people get cavities, they have their fillings done one a month, not five or six at a time, she said.

As a result, Freemont and her husband are worried their income could drop

Could drop – hasn’t dropped yet.

and are trying to be more prudent with their money. They’re monitoring spending more closely and continuing to whittle down their credit card balances and her dental school debt, she said.

Paying down debt from income – this is not typical, as consumer credit rose at the last report.

“We know how to put the brakes on if we have to,” said Freemont, 35.

‘If we have to’ – haven’t yet.

Across America, there are growing signs that consumers are worried about the weakening economy, which could slip into recession.

What growing signs?

While some say Americans are not famed for their belt-tightening tactics, there are signs that people are trying to improve their personal balance sheets so they’re ready for tougher times.

What signs?

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, said the economic signals “are flashing yellow,” suggesting that consumers need to take care.

What signals?

Jobs are getting harder to find,

Employment and income are still rising as of December and early January reports.

while the crisis in the mortgage industry has made it more difficult for homeowners to borrow against their houses, closing down what has been a major source of extra cash in recent years.

If that has been a factor, there’s little evidence of a material ‘wealth effect’ – it’s been going on for several months, and employment, income, and spending haven’t suffered yet.

Consumers’ budgets have been squeezed by rising food and fuel prices.

Yes, but exports have fill the gap and sustained GDP.

Credit card balances surged through the fall months, according to Federal Reserve figures.

Yes, consumer spending has been OK.

Now delinquency rates on consumer loans are rising, the American Bankers Association reported recently. Even companies that cater to higher-income families, such as American Express Inc., are feeling the pinch.

Delinquencies are rising, but not yet to problem levels. And that’s an overstatement of the announcement by AMEX, which was a statement regarding prospects for next year.

When the economy stumbles, “you have to begin living within your means, or you’ll be forced to do so,” Zandi said.

‘When’ means it hasn’t happened yet.

But Americans are much better spenders than savers, said Greg McBride, senior financial analyst with Bankrate.com, an online financial information service.

“Consumer spending isn’t something that gets turned on and off like a light switch,” he said. “People will say they need to cut back, but they often lack the willpower to do it.”

Still, it appears that people are starting to make an effort.

Starting to make an effort???

Denise Dorman, who runs an advertising and public relations agency in Geneva, Illinois, decided not to replace her 12-year-old vehicle, a Jeep Grand Cherokee with 125,000 miles (200,000 kilometers) on it, to avoid taking on a car payment.

She and her husband Dave, a commercial artist known for his Star Wars illustrations, also are “aggressively paying off credit card debt.” And Dorman is seeking new opportunities to expand her business, perhaps into growth areas such as video-gaming.

“I’ll feel a lot more comfortable when our debt is paid down and business has picked up,” she said.

Sounds like business is good for them – is this the best example the author can find for their recession claim?

The couple experienced the downturn in the housing market firsthand as it took them 18 months to sell their former home in Florida.

True hardship!

They’ve also become increasingly aware of the nation’s deepening economic malaise from news reports and the presidential election debates.

Yes, to your point, Bobby.

“Altogether, it made us rethink what we’re doing financially,” she said.

Frank Krystyniak, 65, director of public relations at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, said the uncertain financial
environment and the effect of the upcoming presidential election has him worried that his savings could take a big hit.

So he recently moved his nest egg out of stock and bond funds and into a fixed-rate account that should yield about 4.75 percent a year, he said.

This is not evidence of recession; it’s evidence of the media scaring people into reallocating assets.

He’s also wary of rising gasoline prices, which could curtail his driving to Colorado to visit family and indulge in his hobby of trout fishing.

Could curtail – hasn’t cut back yet.

Some consumer retrenchment might not be a bad idea, said Sheryl Garrett, founder of The Garrett Planning Network of certified financial planners and author of the “Personal Finance Workbook for Dummies.”

High debt and low savings indicate that consumer budgets are out of kilter, she said.

“A mild recession would be a good opportunity _ or cause or excuse _for people to stop and take a deep breath,” Garrett said. “So many people have overextended themselves.

Apart from why this is in here, it also says there’s no recession yet. The article offers no support whatsoever for its headline – because there isn’t any evidence of a consumer pullback yet.

“If you’re living on the edge when times are good, just what are you going to do when they get bad?”

Should be even more intense tomorrow – might get a ‘capitulation’ day or might just keep going down. It’s technical at this point.

warren

>
> Bobby
>


I’ve been wrong on the Fed

> Hi
>
> You’ve been looking for this kind of financial trouble for a bit over in Europe. Good call Warren.
>
> Bobby.
>

Thanks, yes, I called it from mid 2006 – weakness due to deficit too small to support the credit structure, but inflation racing up as food/fuel rise due to Saudis acting the swing producer and biofuels burning up our food supply.

My error was in thinking the inflation would keep the fed from cutting. Been totally wrong on that!

Never would have thought a CB would act this way in the face of a triple negative supply shock – food/fuel/importand export prices all ratcheting up.

And looks like another 50 cut or maybe even 75 or 100 on Jan 30 even as core inflation goes through their ‘comfort zone,’ and Bernanke’s pushing Congress to hike the deficit! Never imagined the Fed would be keen to send a strong ‘we don’t care about inflation’ message, regardless of GDP in the short run. Goes against every aspect of mainstream monetary theory. But they sure are doing it!

And still no major weakness in the real economy, apart from some possible weakness late December if exports fell off. That won’t be out for a while.

All I can come with are three things:

  1. They’ve been misusing futures prices for oil and food to predict inflation will fall.
  2. They are afraid of fixed exchange rate/gold standard types of monetary collapses, even though we have a floating exchange rate policy, where that doesn’t happen and for all practical purposes can’t happen with floating fx.
  3. They are relying on their forecasts for weakness to bring down inflation when it’s coming from a combination of producer price
    setting, biofuels, and Paulson’s weak $ policy chasing foreign central banks away from $US financial assets.

And yes, watch out for a system wide failure of the payments system in the Eurozone if deposit insurance gets tested by a major bank failure.

Also, the $US remains fundamentally strong, but Paulson and to some degree the Fed are scaring investors away from $US financial assets, including US and other pension funds, which keeps the $ cheap enough to drive increasing US exports.

warren


♥

Re: meltdown?

(an interoffice email)

> … He’s here w/me now & also is very concerned over the entire
> spectrum, especially all the 5/1 ARM’s & 2nd mgtg paper most
> refinancing this year. Ie: orginally good credits, now not. A ton of
> 5/1 Arm paper was done w/ escalations up 40/50% payment wise.

Presumably the borrowers qualified at the time based on the higher payments?

And I see refi’s ratcheting up nicely. Unemployment is about the same, incomes are up, so most borrowers should qualify for refis,
apart from the ones that slipped by with substandard credit in the first place?

> Guess w/these Insurance Cos being downgraded tomorrow will be BLACK Tuesday.
> So, how do we fix a crisis of CONFIDENCE? BB isn’t too convincing these days.

The risk is mark to market risk if there is forced selling by investors that must have rated credits and were relying on the insurance to comply with their ratings criteria.

Forced selling is disruptive for sure- sellers lose, buyers gain as prices go lower than economic and/or recovery value.

Not much the Fed or Congress can do apart from bailing out the bond holders by taking over some piece of the insurance, and operationally it’s hard to see them doing that on a timely basis. But it would ‘cost’ the govt. a relatively small amount of $ to do that, as first loss would still be the shareholders of the ins. companies, and the govt could insure maybe only 95% of the rest, limiting default losses for bond holders to 5 pts max, for example.

As before, none of this directly alters the real economy, apart from psychological effects that might slow demand for a while. This much like the crash of 87- large financial losses but the real economy muddled through until the Bush tax hikes…

All the best!

warren

Re: more on receipts

(an interoffice email)

On Jan 15, 2008 9:23 AM, Karim Basta wrote:
>
>
>
> US Daily Comment – Tax Receipts: How Good an Indicator?
> Summary: Although Treasury income tax receipts are a popular measure of
> economic activity, they are generally too noisy and susceptible to calendar
> distortions to be very informative. Indeed, the recent strength in
> withholding tax receipts in the fourth quarter (+10.5% year-on-year) seems
> to be largely due to an extra Monday during the quarter. Adjusting for this
> factor, year-on-year growth in withholdings was about 6% year-on-year,
> roughly 3 percentage points below the 2006-2007 average and broadly
> consistent with the data on employment and earnings. In contrast, state
> sales tax receipts are a quite useful measure. While less timely, they are
> also less noisy than income tax receipts and provide information on one
> issue that is poorly covered in the standard economic data, namely
> consumption at a regional level. Recent trends in sales tax receipts are
> consistent with a more substantial consumption slowdown than suggested by
> the national consumption and retail sales data, especially in states hard
> hit by the housing crisis.

Thanks!

Agreed.

Fed tax receipts have been slowing for a year or so, but no sudden drop at year end, just a continuation of the general downslope. Haven’t seen the sales tax graph, but should also reflect gradual fall off in demand.

Twin themes remain: weakness and higher prices.

PPI finished year with largest gain since coming off higher numbers in the early 80’s, and probably 10 years before that when they hit 6% + on the way to higher levels.

Demand is definitely on the weak side, but strong enough to generate alarming price increases in food/fuel/imports/exports.

warren


♥

Re: FF vs. LIBOR

(an interoffice email)

On Jan 14, 2008 10:29 AM, Warren Mosler wrote:
> thanks, continued tafs will get it to wherever the fed actually wants
> it. it’s a policy rate they can administer at will.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2008 10:16 AM, Pat Doyle wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Today you can say that the spread has narrowed significantly between LIBOR
> > and FFs. The spread on the indices has been above 60 (with a few
> > exceptions) since August. Aug 7th it was 12bps and was over 100 at times.
> > NOW THE SPREAD IS 43.
> >
> >

Re: Bernanke

(email)

On 11 Jan 2008 11:17:34 +0000, Prof. P. Arestis wrote:
>   Dear Warren,
>
>   Many thanks. Some good comments below.
>
>   The paragraph that I think is of some importance is this:
>
> >  The Committee will, of course, be carefully evaluating incoming
> >  information bearing on the economic outlook. Based on that evaluation,
> >  and consistent with our dual mandate, we stand ready to take
> >  substantive additional action as needed to support growth and to
> >  provide adequate insurance against downside risks.
>
>   If I am not wrong this is the first time for Bernanke that the word
>   inflation does not appear explicitly in his relevant statement. But also
>   there is no mention of anything relevant that might capture their motto
>   that winning the battle against inflation is both necessary and sufficient
>   for their dual mandate.
>
>   Are the economic beliefs of BB changing, I wonder? I rather doubt it but
>   see what you think.

Dear Philip,

I see this is all part of the Bernanke conumdrum.

Implied is that their forecasts call for falling inflation and well anchored expectations, which can only mean continued modest wage increases.

They believe inflation expectations operate through two channels-accelerated purchases and wage demands.

Their forecasts use futures prices of non perishable commodities including food and energy. They don’t seem to realize the
‘backwardation’ term structure of futures prices (spot prices higher than forward prices) is how futures markets express shortages.

Instead, the Fed models use the futures prices as forecasts of where prices will be in the future.

So a term structure for the primary components of CPI that is screaming ‘shortage’ is being read for purposes of monetary policy as a deflation forecast.

Bernanke also fears convertible currency/fixed fx implosions which are far more severe than non convertible currency/floating fx slumps. Even in Japan, for example, there was never a credit supply side constraint – credit worthy borrowers were always able to borrow (and at very low rates) in spite of a near total systemic bank failure. And the payments system continued to function. Contrast that with the collapse in Argentina, Russia, Mexico, and the US in the 30’s which were under fixed fx and gold standard regimes.

It’s like someone with a diesel engine worrying about the fuel blowing up. It can’t. Gasoline explodes, diesel doesn’t. But someone who’s studied automobile explosions when fuel tanks ruptured in collisions, and doesn’t understand the fundamental difference, might be unduly worried about an explosion with his diesel car.

More losses today, but none that directly diminish aggregate demand or alter the supply side availability of credit.

And while the world does seem to be slowing down some, as expected, the call on Saudi oil continues at about 9 million bpd,
so the twin themes of moderating demand and rising food/fuel/import prices remains.

I also expect core CPI to continue to slowly rise for an extended period of time even if food/fuel prices stay at current levels as
these are passed through via the cost structure with a lag.

All the best,

Warren

>
>  Best wishes,
>
>  Philip

Re: Fannie/Freddie risk

All that matters is their ability to keep buying new paper or, if they can’t, whether someone else steps in to buy it. That helps sustain aggregate demand.

The rest is just rearranging of financial assets.

On Jan 6, 2008 1:29 PM, Russell Huntley <rgnh@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> The Baltimore Sun is asking What will happen if Fannie and Freddie go bust?
>
> In a recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Fannie noted that it
> backs $2.6 trillion worth of single-family home loans. Underneath this pile
> of debt, the company has only $42 billion of capital. If the value of
> mortgages backing Fannie’s debt falls a few percentage points, the company’s
> capital could be wiped out. And because of the implicit government guarantee
> backing Fannie’s debt, American taxpayers would be on the hook for whatever
> debt Fannie couldn’t cover.
>
> Consider Fannie’s exposure to high-risk loans: about $300 billion of
> stated-income “liar loans,” $200 billion of interest-only mortgages, $120
> billion of subprime mortgages and $330 billion of high loan-to-value
> mortgages.
>
> Some of these high-risk loans fall into multiple categories and shouldn’t be
> double-counted, but you get the picture: Fannie has significant exposure to
> high-risk loans and only a small capital cushion to protect itself.
>
> Freddie Mac has a few hundred billion dollars of high-risk loans in its $2.1
> trillion book of mortgages. And Freddie’s capital cushion is a meager $40
> billion.
>
>


The subprime mess

On Jan 5, 2008 9:40 PM, Steve Martyak wrote:
> http://www.autodogmatic.com/index.php/sst/2007/02/02/subprime_credit_crunch_could_trigger_col
>
>
> also….
>
> 9/4/2006
> Cover of Business Week: How Toxic Is Your Mortgage? :.
>
> The option ARM is “like the neutron bomb,” says George McCarthy, a housing
> economist at New York’s Ford Foundation. “It’s going to kill all the people
> but leave the houses standing.”
>
> Some people saw it all coming….
>

The subprime setback actually hit about 18 months ago. Investors stopped funding new loans, and would be buyers were were no longer able to buy, thereby reducing demand. Housing fell and has been down for a long time. There are signs it bottomed October/November but maybe not.

I wrote about it then as well, and have been forecasting the slowdown since I noted the fed’s financial obligations ratio was at levels in March 2006 that indicated the credit expansion had to slow as private debt would not be able to increase sufficiently to sustain former levels of GDP growth. And that the reason was the tailwind from the 2003 federal deficits was winding down. as the deficit fell below 2% of GDP, and it was no longer enough to support the credit structure.

Also, while pension funds were still adding to demand with their commodity allocations, that had stopped accelerating as well and
wouldn’t be as strong a factor.

Lastly, I noted exports should pick up some, but I didn’t think enough to sustain growth.

I underestimated export strength, and while GDP hasn’t been stellar as before, it’s been a bit higher than i expected as exports boomed.

That was my first ‘major theme’ – slowing demand.

The second major theme was rising prices – Saudis acting the swing producer and setting price. This was interrupted when Goldman changed their commodity index in aug 06 triggering a massive liquidation as pension funds rebalanced, and oil prices fell from near 80 to about 50, pushed down a second time at year end by Goldman (and AIG as well this time) doing it again. As the liquidation subsided the Saudis were again in control and prices have marched up ever since, and with Putin gaining control of Russian pricing we now have to ‘price setters’ who can act a swing producers and simply set price at any level they want as long as net demand holds up. So far demand has been more than holding up, so it doesn’t seem we are anywhere near the limits of how high they can hike prices.

Saudi production for December should be out tomorrow. It indicates how much demand there is at current prices. If it’s up that means they have lots of room to hike prices further. Only if their production falls are they in danger of losing control on the downside. And I estimate it would have to fall below 7 million bpd for that to happen. It has been running closer to 9 million.

What I have missed is the fed’s response to all this.

I thought the inflation trend would keep them from cutting, as they had previously been strict adherents to the notion that price
stability is a necessary condition for optimal employment and growth.

This is how they fulfilled their ‘dual mandate’ of full employment and price stability, as dictated by ‘law’ and as per their regular reports to congress.

The theory is that if the fed acts to keep inflation low and stable markets will function to optimize employment and growth, and keep long term interest rates low.

What happened back in September is they became preoccupied with ‘market functioning’ which they see as a necessary condition for low inflation to be translated into optimal employment and growth.

What was revealed was the FOMC’s lack of understanding of not only market functioning outside of the fed, but a lack of understanding of their own monetary operations, reserve accounting, and the operation of their member bank interbank markets and pricing mechanisms.

In short, the Fed still isn’t fully aware that ‘it’s about price (interest rates), not quantity (‘money supply, whatever that may be)’.

(Note they are still limiting the size of the TAF operation using an auction methodology rather than simply setting a yield and letting quantity float)

The first clue to this knowledge shortfall was the 2003 change to put the discount rate higher than the fed funds rate, and make the discount rate a ‘penalty rate.’ This made no sense at all, as i wrote back then.

The discount rate is not and can not be a source of ‘market discipline’ and all the change did was create an ‘unstable equilibrium’ condition in the fed funds market. (They can’t keep the system ‘net borrowed’ as before) it all works fine during ‘normal’ periods but when the tree is shaken the NY Fed has it’s hands full keeping the funds rate on target, as we’ve seen for the last 6 months
or so.

While much of this FOMC wasn’t around in 2002-2003, several members were.

Back to September 2007. The FOMC was concerned enough about ‘market functioning’ to act, They saw credit spreads widening, and in particular the fed funds/libor spread was troubling as it indicated their own member banks were pricing each other’s risk at higher levels than the FOMC wanted. If they had a clear, working knowledge of monetary ops and reserve accounting, they would have recognized that either the discount window could be ‘opened’ by cutting the rate to the fed funds rate, removing the ‘stigma’ of using it, and expanding the eligible collateral. (Alternatively, the current TAF is functionally the same thing, and could have been implemented in September as well.)

Instead, they cut the fed funds rate 50 bp, and left the discount rate above it, along with the stigma. and this did little or nothing for the FF/LIBOR spread and for market functioning in general.

This was followed by two more 25 cuts and libor was still trading at 9% over year end until they finally came up with the TAF which immediately brought ff/libor down. It didn’t come all the way down to where the fed wanted it because the limited the size of the TAFs to $20 billion, again hard evidence of a shortfall in their understanding of monetary ops.

Simple textbook analysis shows it’s about price and not quantity. Charles Goodhart has over 65 volumes to read on this, and the first half of Basil Moore’s 1988 ‘Horizontalists and Verticalsists’ is a good review as well.

The ECB’s actions indicate they understand it. Their ‘TAF’ operation set the interest rate and let the banks do all they wanted, and over 500 billion euro cleared that day. And, of course- goes without saying- none of the ‘quantity needles’ moved at all.

In fact, some in the financial press have been noting that with all the ‘pumping in of liquidity’ around the world various monetary
aggregates have generally remained as before.

Rather than go into more detail about monetary ops, and why the CB’s have no effect on quantities, suffice to say for this post that the Fed still doesn’t get it, but maybe they are getting closer.

So back to the point.

Major themes are:

  • Weakness due to low govt budget deficit
  • Inflation due to monopolists/price setters hiking price

And more recently, the Fed cutting interest rates due to ‘market functioning’ in a mistaken notion that ff cuts would address that issue, followed by the TAF which did address the issue. The latest announced tafs are to be 30 billion, up from 20, but still short of the understanding that it’s about price, not quantity.

The last four months have also given the markets the impression that the Fed in actual fact cares not at all about inflation, and will only talk about it, but at the end of the day will act to support growth and employment.

Markets acknowledge that market functioning has been substantially improved, with risk repriced at wider spreads.

However, GDP prospects remain subdued, with a rising number of economists raising the odds of negative real growth.

While this has been the forecast for several quarters, and so far each quarter has seen substantial upward revisions from the initial forecasts, nonetheless the lower forecasts for Q1 have to be taken seriously, as that’s all we have.

I am in the dwindling camp that the Fed does care about inflation, and particularly the risk of inflation expectations elevating which would be considered the ultimate Central Bank blunder. All you hear from FOMC members is ‘yes, we let that happen in the 70’s, and we’re not going to let that happen again’.

And once ‘markets are functioning’ low inflation can again be translated via market forces into optimal employment and growth, thereby meeting the dual mandate.

i can’t even imagine a Fed chairman addressing congress with the reverse – ‘by keeping the economy at full employment market forces will keep inflation and long term interest rates low’.

Congress does not want inflation. Inflation will cost them their jobs. Voters hate inflation. They call it the govt robbing their
savings. Govt confiscation of their wealth. They start looking to the Ron Paul’s who advocate return to the gold standard.

That’s why low inflation is in the Fed’s mandate.

And the Fed also knows they are facing a triple negative supply shock of fuel, food, and import prices/weak $.

While they can’t control fuel prices, what they see there job as is keeping it all a relative value story and not ‘monetizing it into an
inflation story’ which means to them not accommodating it with low real rates that elevate inflation expectations, followed by
accelerating inflation.

There is no other way to see if based on their models. Deep down all their models are relative value models, with no source of the ‘price level.’ ‘Money’ is a numeraire that expresses the relative values. The current price level is there as a consequence of history, and will stay at that level only if ‘inflation expectations are well anchored.’ The ‘expectations operator’ is the only source of the price level in their models.

(See ‘Mandatory Readings‘ for how it all actually works.)

They also know that food/fuel prices are a leading cause of elevated inflation expectations.

In their world, this means that if demand is high enough to drive up CPI it’s simply too high and they need to not accommodate it with low real rates, but instead lean against that wind with higher real rates, or risk letting the inflation cat out of the bag and face a long, expensive, multi year battle to get it back in.

They knew this at the Sept 18 meeting when they cut 50, and twice after that with the following 25 cuts, all as ‘insurance to forestall’ the possible shutdown of ‘market functioning’.

And they knew and saw the price of this insurance – falling dollar, rising food, fuel, and import prices, and CPI soaring past 4% year over year.

To me these cuts in the face of the negative supply shocks define the level of fear, uncertainty, and panic of the FOMC.

It’s perhaps something like the fear felt by a new pilot accidentally flying into a thunderstorm in his first flight in an unfamiliar plane without an instructor or a manual.

The FOCM feared a total collapse of the financial structure. The possibility GDP going to 0 as the economy ‘froze.’ Better to do
something to buy some time, pay whatever inflation price that may follow, than do nothing.

The attitude has been there are two issues- recession due to market failure and inflation.

The response has been to address the ‘crisis’ first, then regroup and address the inflation issue.

And hopefully inflation expectations are well enough anchored to avoid disaster on the inflation front.

So now with the TAF’s ‘working’ (duh…) and market functions restored (even commercial paper is expanding again) the question is what they will do next.

They may decide markets are still too fragile to risk not cutting, as priced in by Feb fed funds futures, and risk a relapse into market dysfunction. Recent history suggests that’s what they would do if the Jan meeting were today.

But it isn’t today, and a lot of data will come out in the next few weeks. Both market functioning data and economic data.

Yes, the economy may weaken, and may go into recession, but with inflation on the rise, that’s the ‘non inflationary speed limit’ and the Fed would see cutting rates to support demand as accomplishing nothing for the real economy, but only increasing inflation and risking elevated inflation expectations. The see real growth as supply side constrained, and their job is keeping demand balanced at a non inflationary level.

But that assumes markets continue to function, and the supply side of credit doesn’t shut down and send GDP to zero in a financial panic.

With a good working knowledge of monetary ops and reserve accounting, and banking in general that fear would vanish, as the FOMC would know what indicators to watch and what buttons to push to safely fly the plane.

Without that knowledge another FF cut is a lot more likely.

more later…

warren


♥

Re: fed mandate discussion

On 03 Jan 2008 20:05:33 +0000, Prof. P. Arestis wrote:
> Dear Warren,
>
(snip)
>
> One point is this: some more extreme people would argue that low inflation
> is both a necessary and sufficient condition for optimal longterm growth and
> employment.

Dear Philip,

Agreed, and we will soon see if the Fed leans in that direction, as
they professed repeatedly before Sept of this year as the way they
complied with their dual mandate of price stability and full
employment.

Seems hard to imagine a change to something like “full employment is a
necessary condition for low and stable prices” but I suppose anything
is possible!

All the best,

Warren

>
> Best wishes,
>
> Philip

Re: fiscal response

On 04 Jan 2008 22:29:03 +0000, Prof. P. Arestis wrote:
> Dear Warren,
>
> Many thanks.
>
> This is all interesting. The sentence that caught my eye is this: “A fiscal

> package is being discussed to day by Bernanke, Paulson, and Bush. That

> would also reduce the odds of a Fed cut”. This would indeed reduce the odds
> of a rate cut. But would Bernanke accept such a proposition when he
> believes passionately that crowding-out in fiscl policy is very much the
> order of the fiscal day? I am curious to see the result of this discussion.

Dear Philip,

Very good point!

Warren

>
> Best wishes,
>
> Philip
>


♥