2008-06-16 7682.2 2008-06-23 7622.9 2008-06-30 7615.2 2008-07-07 7699.7 2008-07-14 7678.7 2008-07-21 7667.4 2008-07-28 7625.6 2008-08-04 7685.0 2008-08-11 7687.8 2008-08-18 7676.7 2008-08-25 7634.5 2008-09-01 7648.8 2008-09-08 7682.1 2008-09-15 7699.3 2008-09-22 7808.3 2008-09-29 7798.5 2008-10-06 7830.7 2008-10-13 7878.9 2008-10-20 7913.3 2008-10-27 7836.0 2008-11-03 7880.1 2008-11-10 7914.8 2008-11-17 7949.7 2008-11-24 7939.4 2008-12-01 8017.2 2008-12-08 8088.0 2008-12-15 8135.9 2008-12-22 8155.4 2008-12-29 8170.2 2009-01-05 8236.6 2009-01-12 8203.9 2009-01-19 8197.8 2009-01-26 8151.8 2009-02-02 8170.1 2009-02-09 8205.9 2009-02-16 8228.9 2009-02-23 8210.7 2009-03-02 8279.0 2009-03-09 8363.7 2009-03-16 8413.4 2009-03-23 8361.7 2009-03-30 8330.7 2009-04-06 8394.3 2009-04-13 8416.7 2009-04-20 8383.7 2009-04-27 8276.4 2009-05-04 8318.0 2009-05-11 8335.0 2009-05-18 8341.6 2009-05-25 8309.3 2009-06-01 8335.1 http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WM2NS?cid=29
In one year, M2 is up 10%.... But in 3 months since the Fed started buying mortgages and treasuries (600B+ worth), M2 is unchanged. So is it fair to conclude that M2 might be flat on the year or even negative if the Fed wasn't buying assets? I think so.
<IMG SRC=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?chart_type=line&height=378&width=630&bgcolor=%23B3CDE7&graph_bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&txtcolor=%23000000&recession_bars=On&s[1][id]=M2&s[1][transformation]=pc1&s[1][scale]=Left&s[1][line_color]=%230000FF&s[1][range]=Custom&s[1][cosd]=2005-11-03&s[1][coed]=2009-06-01&s[1][revision_date]=&s[1][vintage_date]=2009-06-15&s[1][link_values]=&s[1][line_style]=Solid&s[1][mark_type]=NONE> Ben needs more ink and paper.
The Velocity of Money is a killer book.. http://www.amazon.com/Velocity-Mone...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245093001&sr=8-1