Shiller: US could likely to fall into deflationary spiral ala Japan

[stockstradr]

I scan this thread, and I cannot help but laugh.

I cannot believe how many of you still desperately cling to idea that inflation is looming. How many damn economic data points all confirming deflation is it gonna take to turn you people?

Many of you are starting to look pathetic.

Give up the ghost. Deflation is here and the resulting response (to deepening deflation) of the FOMC and the financial markets is predictable.

Swallow your pride (and your obsession with inflation), and then join me in making all this money. Good grief, the yield on the 30-year T-bond has dropped nearly a hundred basis points since early April. You think that’s a sign of inflation? No, that’s a sign i’m making loads of money betting on deflation by holding long bond funds.

Here is a gem for yah:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021121/default.htm

That is your Cliffs Notes on what happens next.

Gold is next to fall. Gold is gonna get hammered. And if it doesn’t fall by natural market forces, our government is gonna make it fall in price by unnatural forces.

Oh and stocks are falling and I’m leveraged short stocks. Oh, and Asia is crashing again and I’m leveraged short the China market.

Yes. It is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]Yea except that our cities and state budgets were set at peak housing tax intake levels,[/quote]

Good point.

CA renter wants lower housing prices and lower property taxes, but she wants to increase sales taxes to make up the shortfall so that the localities can keep on spending at peak levels.

Seems like a “keep the govmin’t hand out of my public pension” kind of argument.

Why should the localities be immune to sharing the pain?

Edit: CA renter, I just read that you believe local budgets should be rolled back to 1998. that would mean cutting government salaries that you were opposed to on the other thread.[/quote]

Brian,

You’re not reading what I’ve said here and in other threads (understandable, as we all write a lot here). Under no circumstances do I think govt entities should spend at peak levels, and I’ve NEVER advocated for that anywhere on the blogs in all the years I’ve been posting (since 2003 on the WSJ blog).

I’ve always said that we have to roll back the pensions to the formula used prior to Gray Davis’ pension boost, and I also think employees need to share a greater part of the burden. Yes, I would gladly welcome rolling back the wages as well, **as long as they allow asset prices to fall commensurately.** IMHO, U.S. workers had much more spending power in 1998 than they do in 2010. I’d welcome it with open arms (and would LOVE to see the income/wealth disparity rolled back as well — the dismantling of our current financial mafia in the FIRE sector would be welcome news!).

I do NOT necessarily support a sales tax, and would much rather see a steeper, progessive income tax that would apply the same to investment income — or even more agressively tax investment income rather than wages.

I am NOT opposed to cutting govt salaries or reforming pensions (I even advocated for it during the boom — long before it became an issue publicly — because I could see where the pension funds were investing and knew it would blow up in their faces). However, I do favor defined benefit pensions for both public and private workers and favor decent, middle-class wages for a larger swath of our working population. I believe that well-qualified and well-trained public sector workers who operate with the highest levels of integrity are the primary difference between a civilized society and a chaotic, corrupt society like what is seen in Third World nations.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]Yea except that our cities and state budgets were set at peak housing tax intake levels,[/quote]

Good point.

CA renter wants lower housing prices and lower property taxes, but she wants to increase sales taxes to make up the shortfall so that the localities can keep on spending at peak levels.

Seems like a “keep the govmin’t hand out of my public pension” kind of argument.

Why should the localities be immune to sharing the pain?

Edit: CA renter, I just read that you believe local budgets should be rolled back to 1998. that would mean cutting government salaries that you were opposed to on the other thread.[/quote]

Brian,

You’re not reading what I’ve said here and in other threads (understandable, as we all write a lot here). Under no circumstances do I think govt entities should spend at peak levels, and I’ve NEVER advocated for that anywhere on the blogs in all the years I’ve been posting (since 2003 on the WSJ blog).

I’ve always said that we have to roll back the pensions to the formula used prior to Gray Davis’ pension boost, and I also think employees need to share a greater part of the burden. Yes, I would gladly welcome rolling back the wages as well, **as long as they allow asset prices to fall commensurately.** IMHO, U.S. workers had much more spending power in 1998 than they do in 2010. I’d welcome it with open arms (and would LOVE to see the income/wealth disparity rolled back as well — the dismantling of our current financial mafia in the FIRE sector would be welcome news!).

I do NOT necessarily support a sales tax, and would much rather see a steeper, progessive income tax that would apply the same to investment income — or even more agressively tax investment income rather than wages.

I am NOT opposed to cutting govt salaries or reforming pensions (I even advocated for it during the boom — long before it became an issue publicly — because I could see where the pension funds were investing and knew it would blow up in their faces). However, I do favor defined benefit pensions for both public and private workers and favor decent, middle-class wages for a larger swath of our working population. I believe that well-qualified and well-trained public sector workers who operate with the highest levels of integrity are the primary difference between a civilized society and a chaotic, corrupt society like what is seen in Third World nations.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]Yea except that our cities and state budgets were set at peak housing tax intake levels,[/quote]

Good point.

CA renter wants lower housing prices and lower property taxes, but she wants to increase sales taxes to make up the shortfall so that the localities can keep on spending at peak levels.

Seems like a “keep the govmin’t hand out of my public pension” kind of argument.

Why should the localities be immune to sharing the pain?

Edit: CA renter, I just read that you believe local budgets should be rolled back to 1998. that would mean cutting government salaries that you were opposed to on the other thread.[/quote]

Brian,

You’re not reading what I’ve said here and in other threads (understandable, as we all write a lot here). Under no circumstances do I think govt entities should spend at peak levels, and I’ve NEVER advocated for that anywhere on the blogs in all the years I’ve been posting (since 2003 on the WSJ blog).

I’ve always said that we have to roll back the pensions to the formula used prior to Gray Davis’ pension boost, and I also think employees need to share a greater part of the burden. Yes, I would gladly welcome rolling back the wages as well, **as long as they allow asset prices to fall commensurately.** IMHO, U.S. workers had much more spending power in 1998 than they do in 2010. I’d welcome it with open arms (and would LOVE to see the income/wealth disparity rolled back as well — the dismantling of our current financial mafia in the FIRE sector would be welcome news!).

I do NOT necessarily support a sales tax, and would much rather see a steeper, progessive income tax that would apply the same to investment income — or even more agressively tax investment income rather than wages.

I am NOT opposed to cutting govt salaries or reforming pensions (I even advocated for it during the boom — long before it became an issue publicly — because I could see where the pension funds were investing and knew it would blow up in their faces). However, I do favor defined benefit pensions for both public and private workers and favor decent, middle-class wages for a larger swath of our working population. I believe that well-qualified and well-trained public sector workers who operate with the highest levels of integrity are the primary difference between a civilized society and a chaotic, corrupt society like what is seen in Third World nations.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]Yea except that our cities and state budgets were set at peak housing tax intake levels,[/quote]

Good point.

CA renter wants lower housing prices and lower property taxes, but she wants to increase sales taxes to make up the shortfall so that the localities can keep on spending at peak levels.

Seems like a “keep the govmin’t hand out of my public pension” kind of argument.

Why should the localities be immune to sharing the pain?

Edit: CA renter, I just read that you believe local budgets should be rolled back to 1998. that would mean cutting government salaries that you were opposed to on the other thread.[/quote]

Brian,

You’re not reading what I’ve said here and in other threads (understandable, as we all write a lot here). Under no circumstances do I think govt entities should spend at peak levels, and I’ve NEVER advocated for that anywhere on the blogs in all the years I’ve been posting (since 2003 on the WSJ blog).

I’ve always said that we have to roll back the pensions to the formula used prior to Gray Davis’ pension boost, and I also think employees need to share a greater part of the burden. Yes, I would gladly welcome rolling back the wages as well, **as long as they allow asset prices to fall commensurately.** IMHO, U.S. workers had much more spending power in 1998 than they do in 2010. I’d welcome it with open arms (and would LOVE to see the income/wealth disparity rolled back as well — the dismantling of our current financial mafia in the FIRE sector would be welcome news!).

I do NOT necessarily support a sales tax, and would much rather see a steeper, progessive income tax that would apply the same to investment income — or even more agressively tax investment income rather than wages.

I am NOT opposed to cutting govt salaries or reforming pensions (I even advocated for it during the boom — long before it became an issue publicly — because I could see where the pension funds were investing and knew it would blow up in their faces). However, I do favor defined benefit pensions for both public and private workers and favor decent, middle-class wages for a larger swath of our working population. I believe that well-qualified and well-trained public sector workers who operate with the highest levels of integrity are the primary difference between a civilized society and a chaotic, corrupt society like what is seen in Third World nations.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]Yea except that our cities and state budgets were set at peak housing tax intake levels,[/quote]

Good point.

CA renter wants lower housing prices and lower property taxes, but she wants to increase sales taxes to make up the shortfall so that the localities can keep on spending at peak levels.

Seems like a “keep the govmin’t hand out of my public pension” kind of argument.

Why should the localities be immune to sharing the pain?

Edit: CA renter, I just read that you believe local budgets should be rolled back to 1998. that would mean cutting government salaries that you were opposed to on the other thread.[/quote]

Brian,

You’re not reading what I’ve said here and in other threads (understandable, as we all write a lot here). Under no circumstances do I think govt entities should spend at peak levels, and I’ve NEVER advocated for that anywhere on the blogs in all the years I’ve been posting (since 2003 on the WSJ blog).

I’ve always said that we have to roll back the pensions to the formula used prior to Gray Davis’ pension boost, and I also think employees need to share a greater part of the burden. Yes, I would gladly welcome rolling back the wages as well, **as long as they allow asset prices to fall commensurately.** IMHO, U.S. workers had much more spending power in 1998 than they do in 2010. I’d welcome it with open arms (and would LOVE to see the income/wealth disparity rolled back as well — the dismantling of our current financial mafia in the FIRE sector would be welcome news!).

I do NOT necessarily support a sales tax, and would much rather see a steeper, progessive income tax that would apply the same to investment income — or even more agressively tax investment income rather than wages.

I am NOT opposed to cutting govt salaries or reforming pensions (I even advocated for it during the boom — long before it became an issue publicly — because I could see where the pension funds were investing and knew it would blow up in their faces). However, I do favor defined benefit pensions for both public and private workers and favor decent, middle-class wages for a larger swath of our working population. I believe that well-qualified and well-trained public sector workers who operate with the highest levels of integrity are the primary difference between a civilized society and a chaotic, corrupt society like what is seen in Third World nations.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene]
My original assertion was that monetizing Treasuries at constant deficit does not have an effect on consumption.
[/quote]

Ah, I see what you mean. Good point — I agree.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene]
My original assertion was that monetizing Treasuries at constant deficit does not have an effect on consumption.
[/quote]

Ah, I see what you mean. Good point — I agree.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene]
My original assertion was that monetizing Treasuries at constant deficit does not have an effect on consumption.
[/quote]

Ah, I see what you mean. Good point — I agree.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene]
My original assertion was that monetizing Treasuries at constant deficit does not have an effect on consumption.
[/quote]

Ah, I see what you mean. Good point — I agree.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=Eugene]
My original assertion was that monetizing Treasuries at constant deficit does not have an effect on consumption.
[/quote]

Ah, I see what you mean. Good point — I agree.

[briansd1]

CA renter, thanks for the clarification. I understand your position better now.

It seems to me like we’ve had deflation. Consumer goods and furniture are definitely cheaper now than in 1998.

Cars with the same level of size/performance/accessories are also cheaper.

Housing, health care and education have gone through the roof.

[briansd1]

CA renter, thanks for the clarification. I understand your position better now.

It seems to me like we’ve had deflation. Consumer goods and furniture are definitely cheaper now than in 1998.

Cars with the same level of size/performance/accessories are also cheaper.

Housing, health care and education have gone through the roof.

[briansd1]

CA renter, thanks for the clarification. I understand your position better now.

It seems to me like we’ve had deflation. Consumer goods and furniture are definitely cheaper now than in 1998.

Cars with the same level of size/performance/accessories are also cheaper.

Housing, health care and education have gone through the roof.

[briansd1]

CA renter, thanks for the clarification. I understand your position better now.

It seems to me like we’ve had deflation. Consumer goods and furniture are definitely cheaper now than in 1998.

Cars with the same level of size/performance/accessories are also cheaper.

Housing, health care and education have gone through the roof.

[Author]

Posts