Holy gushing about the Fed, Batman. Do you get a salary to post in support of the Fed? I have this visual of your house having gigantic murals in each room of Fed chairmen and such. Do you have the collectible dish set? Are you still waiting for the Yellen dish to come in the mail or did you get it by now?
Unmitigated Success... It appears "hope" is a strategy in Japan. Abe's nation emerged from recession in Q4 but with business spending (capex grew at a mere 0.1%) and private consumption (+0.3% - which Amari defined as "solid private demand supporting economic recovery") both coming in considerably below estimates, Japanese GDP QoQ SAAR grew at+2.2% (missing expectations of 3.7%) but real GDP growth was negative for the 3rd quarter in a row. Of course the GDP deflator grew at 2.3%, beating expectations, is desperately clung to by Japan's economy minster Amari as evidence of the end of deflation in Japan. Real GDP growth negative for 3rd quarter in a row... Japanese GDP Deflator surged (again) to 2.3% - its largest on record... (since 1995) And on th eback of that load of crap... Japan's Economy Minister Amari said the following: *AMARI: DEFLATOR SHOWS CONDITIONS FAVORABLE FOR DEFLATION EXIT *AMARI: JOB, INCOME CONDITIONS MAY CONTINUE TO IMPROVE *AMARI: HOPES FOR WAGE INCREASES AGAIN THIS YEAR But *AMARI: CONSUMER SENTIMENT HAS IMPROVED CONSIDERABLY Which - as far as we remember - sentiment never actually spent any money... actions speak louder than surveys... *AMARI: CONDITIONS FOR ECONOMIC UPTURN ARE FORMING Oh yes they are... any year now..
The headline 2.2% number refers to real GDP QoQ SAAR. The nominal number for the same period was 4.5%. Had real GDP QoQ been negative again, there would have been no discussion of Japan exiting recession.
You did not directly answer any of my posted points and refer me to the Federal reserve website. If I said a certain investment was a ponzi scheme, would you refer me to their website for a lovely article on why they are misunderstood and being persecuted? Perhaps a third party source is more preferred for fact checking. I've read that the reason the value of gold at 35 dollars couldn't be held is that the US under Nixon defaulted on paying France the gold they owed them when it was requested. Is that incorrect? The government couldn't control their spending - something not unique in history. Here is another amusing lunatic reference for you - http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...heorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge I knew about the Federal reserve from this book in the late 1990s: 2008 confirmed his wild ass theories for me when his predictions happened a decade later on. Here is another wild theorist: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-22/alan-greenspan-warns-there-will-be-“significant-market-event-something-big-going-hap Read what the same fellow said the fundamental issue way back when: http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm Curious what a difference a decade or two makes.
Wow -is that that same Harry Dexter White that the FBI accused of being a spy in the Venona project? Why did they lose control over the price of gold? Could it be overspending? Keynes has never been followed completely by the powers that be. In fact he never said to run deficits forever. I supposed he must be amazed at what monetary policy has become.
It wasn't just France. This had nothing to do with not controlling spending. Keynes, at Bretton Woods, immediately forsesaw the flaws in an exchange system based on a dollar pegged to gold at 35/oz. and pointed out the reasons why the system of exchange would be unsustainable. He was overruled. The problems Keynes foresaw began to surface within 15 years of the Bretton Woods Conference (1944) but the U.S. soldiered on until it became completely untenable to maintain gold at 35/oz. The U.S. was still redeeming at 35/oz well after gold was trading elsewhere at over $40. I am not inclined to repeat the history that is already available and very well done. If you want correct information, I can recommend you look for Wikipedia articles on Bretton Woods, Triffin dilemma, and the Nixon Shock. That will get you a long ways. Suffice it to say that basing exchange rates on a single currency pegged to gold, with a promise to maintain the price of gold constant, was lunacy in 1944, though it worked for a while, and it is still lunacy today. The floating fiat currency system that we have today makes more sense in a global economy.
I wouldn't be able to add anything of substance beyond what you can get from the Federal Reserve Websites. The website for the New York Branch Bank is also very good, by the way. It is ny.frb.org I wasn't able to see the parallels between a hypothetical investment that is in fact a Ponzi scheme, and the Federal Reserve, which is both the Central Bank of the United States and also an administrative agency of the U.S. government.
History is written by the victors and so one must read many sources before a clear picture arises IMO. In a world that trades internationally, the balance of trade is equivalent of overspending. They must square eventually and someone must pay off debts eventually. The flaw is that no human can be trusted to issue money. That was true in Roman days and is true today. I suspect we are in the throws of a base currency change now. The new one may be a basket of currencies, but the same problem will occur eventually. Free markets are one solution,but they are long gone. First a country has a net production of resources, then eventually it exhausts the non-renewable ones, then governments try to fool all the people all of the time, and then like a super nova or phoenix, a new government is born of the dreams of dust of the old one. One can fool people for a long time, but food, shelter, clothing and compassion are essential. (Work is important to keep minds busy.) Lose any of them and trouble starts. Money is labor hoarded, but it need not be debt. That was imposed from outside and accepted inside in a misdirection as many things are. Some people "own" things. What an odd concept. Capitalism has no cost for resources. This is incorrect since there is a cost to multiple world creatures of some sort. If we ignore it of unionize it (extortion sometimes) there is profit magically. Socialism believes that if we all sit around smoke weed, manna will fall from heaven and feed us. I think that a sound society IMO believes that money is labor stored and financial instruments cause dislocations when the ratio of "pot smokers" to producers falls below a critical level for long enough. A sound society says to cheat one is to cheat all and endless warring will not be the solution IMO. What you tie labor to doesn't matter (gold, tally sticks, bubble gum, pretty stones with a monopoly and a great marketing story line) as much as its being a sound store of labor. If it is subject to corrupt practices in its handling, then eventually an end will come. Government needs to shrink its size since it is a non-producer for the most part and very inefficient for the good it does do IMO. It like many unstable things, it tends to grow without limit based on the general human weakness - fear couple with the ability to imagine possible future outcomes. Just my 2 cents worth (100 years ago it was a dollar - LOL) PS: Since you seem to imply that you have the "correct" information, could you point out to us where I am going off track. Thanks.
I'll merely comment that the U.S. dollar being the reserve currency committed the country to more or less permanent imbalances in its balance of trade and current account. (see Triffin dilemma). This is a necessary condition of the U.S. maintaining its currency as the reserve currency; a status which had, and continues to have, compensating benefits for the U.S. I don't mean to imply that I have correct information, rather only that I believe it is correct and have no reason to doubt that it is. You'll be the one, of course, who decides whether you are off track or not. My personal opinion won't make a difference in that regard.