This number is somewhat misleading IMHO Glenn beck brought it out on Wednesday with Charles Payne. In it of itself it doesnt mean anything. World GDP was 60 trillion in 08. The FED had to increase money supply because their was an epic bank run of monstrous proportions. If the FED did not issue the dollars, there would have been a run on dollars. Why do you think with all the printing the dollar gained strength. Because there was a run on dollars. I mean I agree with letting the bubble pop, the bubble has popped. But I did not want to be standing in line to withdraw my money. So issue currency to feed the demand. Now Mises says inflation is the expansion of the money supply. So inflation has occurred because the monetary base expanded. but overall inflation is better than deflation. Hyperinflation sucks but we have trump card for now that will protect us against hyperinflation and thats reserve currency status. So there is inflation out there, and we are seeing it in Gold now, and stocks as the dollar slides. Now the FED will need to reign it in. Americans are saving now, and I don't think we will go back to the go go days for at least another decade.
Thats an awesome point. Saw it after i posted. yes one thing people lose track of us we have a second currency which in some ways became our primary currency and that is debt. Debt over the last 20 years has become a currency. Banks did a lot of off the books currency creation in the form of derivatives which allowed them create more assets to in turn boost reserves and loan out to create more assests to boost reservers to loan out and so on. This is why when the FED raised rates Greenspan was going, WTF we are raising rates and the party is going on in the long bonds. Because in effect the financial community was printing their own currency.
it wasn't the same most of the them were drafts and most regulations are not fully introduced on the date stated. for example frs 25 and frs26 were introduce in 2004 but not fully used till 2006. even so the fact that the regulation has made a move to harmonisation is worth mentioning.
in response to random capital that is exactly the point i made. i told you about harmonisation in that post. why would they move towards an international hyperinflation standard unless they suspected there would be international hyperinflation in the future. yes they had a standard before 2004 but it was not harmonised. you just pointed out an aspect of what i was saying. isn't the fact that they are tying to harmonise accounting standards suspect enough.
They didn't. They were already there, and harmonized their long-existing standard with another, widely-used long-existing standard. No. First, the changes are minor. Second, it's both the smart and the right thing to do.
why is it the smart and right thing to do. you assume one standard for the whole world is correct. i do not. also it means that there is one universal board at the top making all of the decisions is that good to have the power in one place. it is the same as the introduction of the eu directives they cause problems and ridiculous things often occur because they are set in germany and it is not relevant in other countries. my point being although you clearly disagree (which is fair enough and i appreciate your position and view it as a valid one and also appreciate your time in commenting) is that they moved from a domestic standard to a international one. i did not state there were not previous standards to frs 24 merely that it was introduced in 2004 there were regulations before, in the case of the ias there was i think a sic and in the case of the frs there would have been an ssap. it is like ssap 2 was superseeded by frs 18.
Because, as happens with all old regs, people had learned a few things and it was time to update the SOP.
yes but why does that have to entail an international version. and for that specific area. what about frs 13 when it stated that financial derivatives had to be disclosed but no real treatment was set until frs 25 and frs26. they were not introduced until 2004 and part of them until 2006 far to late for the derivative situation which helped to create the situation of today. so why is there an effort to update the standard unless they thought it was not up to date and needed to be revised because it was likely it would occur. another example the pension situation frs17 is used to regulate pension treatment however this did not stop the contribution holidays. surely they would update it. they seem to update things when they feel the need so why hyperinflation and why in relation to international standard. my point being they must have seen it was coming or likely to occur to update the standard otherwise they would leave it the way it was. the fact they updated to an international level would indicate they foresee international hyperinflation or they would not set a standard to deal with that occurrence. the fact that they did not update the derivatives standard or the pension standard in time would indicate that they are more worried about the threat of hyperinflation or they would have not updated that standard. by updating the standard means that the old standard is not sufficient. so it would indicate both that the treatment was not sufficient and that they were worried enough about the likelihood of its occurrence to bother.
i don't understand do you not agree with that logic. surely they would not bother to update that standard unless they thought it was likely there would be international hyperinflation. is that logic correct or incorrect. any way thanks for your replies it is good to discuss regulations you are obviously qualified in that area.