- This topic has 200 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
JWM in SD.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 1, 2008 at 8:06 AM #197226May 1, 2008 at 9:07 AM #197157
JWM in SD
Participant“Perhaps the tightening on one part of the system is intended to hedge what they are doing to influence the another part of the system via rates ?”
Could very well be.
As far as M2 goes, could also be that a lot of companies are cashing in their LOCs and putting the cash into money market funds for future liquidity needs while they still can. Suggest that you read Mish Shedlock’s site for theories on whether the Fed is really “printing” or not.
May 1, 2008 at 9:07 AM #197192Participant“Perhaps the tightening on one part of the system is intended to hedge what they are doing to influence the another part of the system via rates ?”
Could very well be.
As far as M2 goes, could also be that a lot of companies are cashing in their LOCs and putting the cash into money market funds for future liquidity needs while they still can. Suggest that you read Mish Shedlock’s site for theories on whether the Fed is really “printing” or not.
May 1, 2008 at 9:07 AM #197218Participant“Perhaps the tightening on one part of the system is intended to hedge what they are doing to influence the another part of the system via rates ?”
Could very well be.
As far as M2 goes, could also be that a lot of companies are cashing in their LOCs and putting the cash into money market funds for future liquidity needs while they still can. Suggest that you read Mish Shedlock’s site for theories on whether the Fed is really “printing” or not.
May 1, 2008 at 9:07 AM #197240Participant“Perhaps the tightening on one part of the system is intended to hedge what they are doing to influence the another part of the system via rates ?”
Could very well be.
As far as M2 goes, could also be that a lot of companies are cashing in their LOCs and putting the cash into money market funds for future liquidity needs while they still can. Suggest that you read Mish Shedlock’s site for theories on whether the Fed is really “printing” or not.
May 1, 2008 at 9:07 AM #197278Participant“Perhaps the tightening on one part of the system is intended to hedge what they are doing to influence the another part of the system via rates ?”
Could very well be.
As far as M2 goes, could also be that a lot of companies are cashing in their LOCs and putting the cash into money market funds for future liquidity needs while they still can. Suggest that you read Mish Shedlock’s site for theories on whether the Fed is really “printing” or not.
May 1, 2008 at 11:13 AM #197199(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantJWM – Thanks, MIsh’s blog has a recent piece on this subject.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/unstoppable-credit-contraction.htmlMish makes the deflationary case. However, it is difficult for me to turn off the empirical evidence I see every day in my life when I buy milk, gas, and food as well as when I see broad measures of money supply numbers increase. BUt I do have an open mind, and I do see that the strictness of credit is clearly deflationary.
However, if the argument cannot be explained to an 8th grader I tend to discount it. For example, in 2004-2005 one could clearly see that home prices relative to incomes had expanded well beyond historic norms (see Rich’s primer). At that time, people tried to explain away this discrepancy with convoluted arguments.
Currently, we have inflationistas citing that broad measures of money supply are increasing and that the actions by the Fed are pushing down the value of the dollar (Thus requiring more dollars to buy goods and services).
The deflationistas are citing contraction in available credit (simple enough, I get that) coupled with esoteric arguments as to why basic measures of money supply (M2) are not reflecting the “real” effects.
I guess we will know how it turns out as things unfold over the next few years. We can argue all we want, but as Milton Friedman said, “The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.”
May 1, 2008 at 11:13 AM #197232ParticipantJWM – Thanks, MIsh’s blog has a recent piece on this subject.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/unstoppable-credit-contraction.htmlMish makes the deflationary case. However, it is difficult for me to turn off the empirical evidence I see every day in my life when I buy milk, gas, and food as well as when I see broad measures of money supply numbers increase. BUt I do have an open mind, and I do see that the strictness of credit is clearly deflationary.
However, if the argument cannot be explained to an 8th grader I tend to discount it. For example, in 2004-2005 one could clearly see that home prices relative to incomes had expanded well beyond historic norms (see Rich’s primer). At that time, people tried to explain away this discrepancy with convoluted arguments.
Currently, we have inflationistas citing that broad measures of money supply are increasing and that the actions by the Fed are pushing down the value of the dollar (Thus requiring more dollars to buy goods and services).
The deflationistas are citing contraction in available credit (simple enough, I get that) coupled with esoteric arguments as to why basic measures of money supply (M2) are not reflecting the “real” effects.
I guess we will know how it turns out as things unfold over the next few years. We can argue all we want, but as Milton Friedman said, “The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.”
May 1, 2008 at 11:13 AM #197259ParticipantJWM – Thanks, MIsh’s blog has a recent piece on this subject.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/unstoppable-credit-contraction.htmlMish makes the deflationary case. However, it is difficult for me to turn off the empirical evidence I see every day in my life when I buy milk, gas, and food as well as when I see broad measures of money supply numbers increase. BUt I do have an open mind, and I do see that the strictness of credit is clearly deflationary.
However, if the argument cannot be explained to an 8th grader I tend to discount it. For example, in 2004-2005 one could clearly see that home prices relative to incomes had expanded well beyond historic norms (see Rich’s primer). At that time, people tried to explain away this discrepancy with convoluted arguments.
Currently, we have inflationistas citing that broad measures of money supply are increasing and that the actions by the Fed are pushing down the value of the dollar (Thus requiring more dollars to buy goods and services).
The deflationistas are citing contraction in available credit (simple enough, I get that) coupled with esoteric arguments as to why basic measures of money supply (M2) are not reflecting the “real” effects.
I guess we will know how it turns out as things unfold over the next few years. We can argue all we want, but as Milton Friedman said, “The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.”
May 1, 2008 at 11:13 AM #197281ParticipantJWM – Thanks, MIsh’s blog has a recent piece on this subject.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/unstoppable-credit-contraction.htmlMish makes the deflationary case. However, it is difficult for me to turn off the empirical evidence I see every day in my life when I buy milk, gas, and food as well as when I see broad measures of money supply numbers increase. BUt I do have an open mind, and I do see that the strictness of credit is clearly deflationary.
However, if the argument cannot be explained to an 8th grader I tend to discount it. For example, in 2004-2005 one could clearly see that home prices relative to incomes had expanded well beyond historic norms (see Rich’s primer). At that time, people tried to explain away this discrepancy with convoluted arguments.
Currently, we have inflationistas citing that broad measures of money supply are increasing and that the actions by the Fed are pushing down the value of the dollar (Thus requiring more dollars to buy goods and services).
The deflationistas are citing contraction in available credit (simple enough, I get that) coupled with esoteric arguments as to why basic measures of money supply (M2) are not reflecting the “real” effects.
I guess we will know how it turns out as things unfold over the next few years. We can argue all we want, but as Milton Friedman said, “The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.”
May 1, 2008 at 11:13 AM #197317ParticipantJWM – Thanks, MIsh’s blog has a recent piece on this subject.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/unstoppable-credit-contraction.htmlMish makes the deflationary case. However, it is difficult for me to turn off the empirical evidence I see every day in my life when I buy milk, gas, and food as well as when I see broad measures of money supply numbers increase. BUt I do have an open mind, and I do see that the strictness of credit is clearly deflationary.
However, if the argument cannot be explained to an 8th grader I tend to discount it. For example, in 2004-2005 one could clearly see that home prices relative to incomes had expanded well beyond historic norms (see Rich’s primer). At that time, people tried to explain away this discrepancy with convoluted arguments.
Currently, we have inflationistas citing that broad measures of money supply are increasing and that the actions by the Fed are pushing down the value of the dollar (Thus requiring more dollars to buy goods and services).
The deflationistas are citing contraction in available credit (simple enough, I get that) coupled with esoteric arguments as to why basic measures of money supply (M2) are not reflecting the “real” effects.
I guess we will know how it turns out as things unfold over the next few years. We can argue all we want, but as Milton Friedman said, “The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.”
May 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM #197250SHILOH
Participant“”The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.”
Kinda like: “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”
So if this house market collapse is anything like past ones – it’s not time to buy.
May 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM #197283Participant“”The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.”
Kinda like: “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”
So if this house market collapse is anything like past ones – it’s not time to buy.
May 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM #197307Participant“”The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.”
Kinda like: “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”
So if this house market collapse is anything like past ones – it’s not time to buy.
May 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM #197331Participant“”The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.”
Kinda like: “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”
So if this house market collapse is anything like past ones – it’s not time to buy.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.