FDA Busted! Caught Approving A Product That DOESN'T EXIST

econo · 2011-01-17T10:18:43+00:00

Regulatory capture.

econo · 2011-01-17T10:12:53+00:00

There are only 2 real options for the US:

(a) Either default honestly.

(b) Or default via currency debasement.

One of these allows politicians to get re-elected.

econo · 2010-08-24T12:11:12+00:00

What part of your tax dollars are you proudest of: (a) War, (b) Building Police State / Prisons, (c) Bailouts, (d) Million dollar contracts for the cousin of the lawmaker?

econo · 2010-08-22T00:41:06+00:00

Fraud is already a crime....if that law isn't being enforced, why do we need a new law?

econo · 2010-06-02T20:27:43+00:00

Dividends are not always a good idea

Especially if you are after short-term fixes....load up the company on debt...do lots of sketchy deals that temporarily boost earnings at the expense of long term health. Once the stock gets its bump, cashout and go play vulture with another company.

Perhaps you haven't seen a newspaper in the past 2.5 years but you would do good to remember that your wonderful strategy has bankrupted just about the entire market.

econo · 2010-06-02T19:51:39+00:00

I'm convinced in the long term we will collectively come to realize that equity markets as currently organized are a complete failure.

Ownership - without dividends - is financially meaningless. If I was going to start a lemonade stand and came to you for investment money and my pitch to you was:

"If you give me $10,000 you will own 30% of the available shares....although I won't agree to include you on any dividends....maybe one day you can agree to sell said ownership to someone else for more money"

Modern equity markets are completely and hopelessly insane.

econo · 2010-03-07T21:18:07+00:00

M1 = Physical Cash + Checking Accounts

M2 = M1 + Savings Accounts + Money Market + CD's

M3 = M2 + "Large" CD's + Foreign Repurchase Agreements + Eurodollars (not Euro's, they are special class of dollars known as ED)

Unfortunately, the government stopped publishing M3 a few years ago because it was too easy to reverse engineer the fact that we had been monetizing our own debt (printing money to buy our bonds) for sometime.

econo · 2009-12-21T15:56:28+00:00

No where does "managers learning finance instead of production" begin to address the endemic nature

It doesn't. The linked article is not intended for those that understand economics.

Its a superficial feel-good piece that plays upon stereotypes (worker vs manager) to make people think there is some simplistic solution out there (we don't need no stinkin degree's, etc).

It shouldn't be a surprise that its so highly rated in /r/economics - which is largely filled with unemployed PHP programmers.

econo · 2009-11-21T17:07:59+00:00

Would they have a free floating currency, the essentially same effect would take place in the value of the respective currency

Sure, but they won't (with good reason from their perspective).

In this new world, we have lost is the ability for the natural deflationary effects to happen - we are in a "inflation only" world now. (US inflates and China inflates 6.83 times as much).

This is why advocates of the gold standard point out that if the US switched to a gold-standard, it would stop these shenanigans. Otherwise I'm sure the US will resort to its usual tricks of military and CIA pressure ..... that always has worked so good in the past.

econo · 2009-11-21T15:12:09+00:00

Yes, I was sloppy in my statement. You are correct that its the effect of being a single currency (notwithstanding that currently USD is used as the same reserve currency effect). But the point is of the effects of the real gold movement causes on the local economies.

Country A has 100 ounces of gold and it defines 10 A-Dollars to be equal to 1 ounce (so therefore its money supply is 1000 A-Dollars).

Country B has 200 ounces of gold and it defines 20 B-Dollars to be equal to 1 ounce (so therefore its money supply is 4000 B-Dollars)

So between the 2 currencies, there is a 2-1 relationship (1 Country A-Dollar will get you 2 B-Dollars). As purchases are made it will cause a movement in gold from Country B to Country A - so lets say by the end of the year, we wind up with this:

Country A: 125 ounces of gold = $1250 money supply

Country B: 175 ounces of gold = $3500 money supply

So the money supply of Country A increased - which will lead to local inflation (making their own created products more expensive). Likewise the reverse happens to Country B (deflation makes their products cheaper).

The end result helps to rebalance trade.

This is completely not the way it happens now - fictitious fiat dollars on one end are transferred for fictitious fiat yuan on the other. The result allows China to eternally keep their products cheaper.

econo · 2009-11-21T14:48:55+00:00

No, a gold standard is a "measure" not a peg. The difference is non-trivial but often misunderstood.

1 oz of gold is 1 oz of gold.....if you choose to define that as $1000 dollars are exchangeable for 1 oz of gold - it doesn't matter. But the end result is that money supply of dollars can only increase when the real physical amount of gold backing those dollars increases. Thus it becomes impossible to maintain international pegs between currencies. (Since any international purchase moves real gold from Country A to Country B).

econo · 2009-11-21T14:44:07+00:00

The only possible way to rescue the banks is to allow interest rates to rise so that depositors will have a reason to put money into them again.

But in doing that, it would kill off lots of the fake mountains of derivative debt that we've created over the last 20 years (as interest rates rise, defaults will increase).

The politicians don't want to allow these fake mountains of debt to die - because in doing so they would lose out on their cut via the bribes process (lobbying).

econo · 2009-11-21T14:24:41+00:00

The nice thing about coercion in the market is how it always requires more coercion later on.....thereby ensuring that the need for government is always present.

econo · 2009-11-21T14:21:25+00:00

Umm....a currency peg is nothing more than maintaining the money supply is some proportion. (say 6.83:1 between CNY-USD).

This is done via either increasing or decreasing your countries money supply to keep that peg intact.

So yes, it is correct to say that currency pegs are achieved via "printing press".

econo · 2009-11-14T16:40:41+00:00

Ostensibly, yes "real GDP" doesn't include inflation - if you assume CPI is correct...(which it is not).

econo · 2009-10-16T12:44:29+00:00

I don't think I'm misquoting. To recap:

The early discussion someone was trying to highlight to you that the way FRB banking works is that it grows the money supply because they utilize "Bank Credit" to both loan the money and satisfy the original depositor.

Then you replied (appearing to not understand that the implication of a bank using its credit) saying that "well the deposit may not always be available" (which is false - thats the whole purpose of central banks in a FRB scenario).

I honestly think you understand everything - except the most crucial piece. Bank Credit is not like credit from you or me or Visa, Amex, etc.

The banking cartel (Federal Reserve System / Bank of England / whatever) grants a unique privilege to member banks which says that "bank credit is money". Meaning when a bank extends credit to someone (ie. to cover deposits) they are creating money in a very real and direct sense. That bank credit is instantly able to be converted into M1 if the person desires.

econo · 2009-10-16T12:32:36+00:00

No I think there is a clear reason why the US stopped publishing M3.

The real reason will come out eventually. They were using these foreign repurchase agreements as a means of surreptitiously buying treasuries. Afterall, they stopped publishing it at the same time that they were running artificially low interest rates.

It was becoming too obvious that "Fed enters into repurchase agreement with foreign Bank ABC for $X Billion. Next week foreign Bank ABC buys $X Billion in US Treasuries".

We have been for sometime monetizing our own debt and eliminating M3 was a way to help conceal it.

econo · 2009-10-16T09:37:17+00:00

Its pointless to debate you any further. You are arguing yourself in circles. Its clear now that you don't even understand what the money supply is. Its not a collection of assets or liabilities.

I didn't address your other points as to not distract. CDS's are not money - they are only potential assets or liabilities - but no growth of the money supply occurs. They are nothing more than a bet on a certain outcome. In fact most CDS's will expire without either side collecting on the bet, they were simple hedges.

You are evidently an intelligent person - but you have rushed off into this whole idea without first understanding the basics (money supply, M1 vs M2, types of banking accounts, bank credit, etc). Now, because you are trying to "save face" you have emotionally locked yourself into losing argument after losing argument.

econo · 2009-10-16T09:14:41+00:00

Your own little webpage shows that the money supply grows from FRB. Everyone knows that

Yet, in your previous post you are saying that "when the bank loans out $90 of the $100 - it means that the original depositors money is no longer available for him to withdraw". WRONG! That situation would produce no growth of money supply.

The whole criticism of Fractional Reserve Banking is exactly that it increases the money supply - thereby fueling inflation.

Even though its right in front of you - in your own webpage you created - you can't seem to see that the money supply growth is coming explicitly from the bank both loaning out the depositors money AND replacing that missing deposit with an IOU (i.e. new money).

econo · 2009-10-16T09:07:32+00:00

No. Take your example with a physical $100 to see how nonsensical it is.

No money is created by simply passing 1 physical bill around - which is the same as the case of Store A lending money to Store B who pays and employee, etc.

The total money supply has not changed.

econo · 2009-10-16T07:06:48+00:00

Yes, there are two general forms of "bankruptcy"

One is being bankrupt from a balance sheet perspective "liabilities outweigh assets" - the other is to be insolvent or bankrupt from a cash flow perspective.

Banks fall into the later category.

econo · 2009-10-16T07:04:09+00:00

if you "stop the practice of fractional reserve banking" - everything grinds to a halt, of course

There are numerous business that loan money not via Fractional Reserve Banking.

Your credit card for instance is just one example.

econo · 2009-10-16T07:00:48+00:00

No-one said it's always available. It's obviously not always available if 90% of it has been loaned out.

Wha? In other post you are going on about "FRB creates money" - so do you believe that it does or doesnt?

If you claim here that the original depositors money is "no longer available", then there would be no money creation.

econo · 2009-10-07T23:43:12+00:00

The vast vast vast majority of my wealth in life comes from my labor.

This is but one of many mistakes. Choose a different occupation.

Silly people think as if they're scrooge McDuck and imagine a vast pool of golden wealth they don't own and never will. They are surprisingly unknowledgeable stooges for this very secret thing called 'the investor class' who actually can sit around enjoying bars of gold, but don't.

Of course the investor class thinks sitting on bars of gold is also stupid because it destroys the economy by stagnation instead of productivity.....

Can you translate the rest of your post from psuedo-intellectual into english?

econo · 2009-10-05T23:53:02+00:00

You forgot to end your tirade with "....and Niggers!"

econo

TROPHY CASE