Fair enough, point taken. So this means that I am somehow special to you? What is it that makes you feel this way about me? It's not about the academic papers telling me so. It's about the accepted methodologies being subjected to academic scrutiny and peer review. And yes, application of scientific method with all the due transparency does make me quite a bit more comfortable. Especially compared to John Williams who a) has a bias and b) has repeatedly refused attempts to engage him in the same context. Well, firstly, as far as I can tell the MIT index is for online prices, correct? What bias does that introduce into the MIT number? Secondly, as far as I can tell, the average of the daily MIT BPP YoY numbers for the month of March is arnd 2.9%, whereas the official BLS release for the Mar YoY was 2.7%. Maybe I am looking at the wrong thing here, but I just don't see anything that damning. Well, I disagree with Stockman. Why is he particularly credible? I don't find his article interesting or well-argued at all. In fact, it's very shrill and definitely more style than substance. If you want to read a serious discussion of the TBTF issue, read Simon Johnson or Andy Haldane, especially the latter, since he's quite rigorous in his analysis.
Physics play no role in modern markets, this market is emotion. HFT's, algorithms etc all account for a huge amount of volume in the markets, that in turn causes greater price fluctuations, those fluctuations cause emotional reactions from traders, brokers, etc and trickling down to Joe investor, those reactions and emotions are what really causes price changes in the markets these days. Less now is based on fundamentals and actual statistics and instead more on action, cause and effect and emotions. If you don't think so, then you're sorely mistaken and delusional. So no, your statement is not correct.
It has to benefit the banks at first, otherwise it wouldn't work. Banks provide credit and capital. It all trickles down from there to the little guy. You can't start the process with the little guy, that would never work. Now alternately I think that the banks have been to cautious and not releasing enough credit quickly enough which is extending this lull, and the government should in effect just force them to lend more, but I don't see that happening.
Perhaps you missed the post where I stated there is no way of knowing if it would have been better or worse overall if nothing was done, so I'll let your ignorance slide and assume you just overlooked it. As to the second post I made regarding house prices, if you are trying to argue that housing prices would not go lower if deflation were present, then you are a fool and this discussion is over.
No you don't. Your mind is made up and no matter how anyone responds to your question of "how does the average citizen benefit from a central bank?", you will simply say "I'm not buying it."
FWIW... Over the last 45 years, inflation has heavily correlated (~+0.90) with the labor market, not commodities. Nominal wages are pacing at +1.7% year-over-year rate, while productivity+2.0%. Unit labor costs continue to deflate as they have done so since Q1 2009. In the 1970's there was not a single quarter of deflating unit labor costs (7% annual rate for entire decade).
Wow - where did you get this info?!?.. I have a hard time finding anything relevant.. I mean even David Rosenberg didn't have data sources like that.
I'm quite, quite confident that I'm no fool. You've called me that before based merely on the fact that I think Bernanke is making the right decisions. How is it I find myself in agreement with James Stock, professor of economics at Harvard University? ...And a host of other economists that have half a brain ...whereas you find yourself in agreement with Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, etc? Seriously bro, give up this line of 'anyone who thinks Bernanke is doing a good job is a fool' (paraphrasing you). It exposes you as the fool actually. Who are you listening to?