[Rich Toscano]

Yeah, I don’t like this new challenge… you should find a better one. Maybe your deadlift?

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=SD Squatter]Typical short sale clutter and piles of junk, including a detailed look at the pantry inventory and head shots of current owners, but the family pet in picture 6 is what sells it for me:

http://www.sdlookup.com/Pictures-120051483#9%5B/quote%5D

HA!

Everyone needs to click this link:

http://www.sdlookup.com/Pictures-120051483#9

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=desmond]
130 lb little girl? You just cost Rich another 6 months of therapy![/quote]

Ha! Just add it to the queue…

[Rich Toscano]

Well done sir! My squat is a yet a fairly long way off from that milestone. Deadlift is just about there but squat is still pretty pathetic. (In my defense I only weigh 140 lbs but as they say in another realm, you can’t eat relative performance…)

Best of luck on the dog food vs. cocktail thing.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=flu]
Nope. But they are the ones that most likely voted for prop 30…Well, because they don’t have to pay for it.[/quote]

Threadjack alert! Everyone go back to the conversation about the value of college education, nothing to see here…

[Rich Toscano]

I almost deleted this thread as requested, and now I’m really glad I didn’t…

[Rich Toscano]

More from Ritholtz: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/11/black-friday-skepticism-finally-goes-mainstream/

He is not a fan of these early black fri numbers…

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=paramount]
The author states that money shouldn’t be counted in M2 until in a depositors account.[/quote]

Yes… and it isn’t (contrary to what he claims in the article).

[Rich Toscano]

As far as Black Friday goes, Barry Ritholtz offered the idea that people crowding the stores to get the discounts while they are available is a sign of consumer weakness, not strength. I’m not convinced of that but it’s an interesting idea. I guess we will have to see what the rest of the season looks like retail spending wise…

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=paramount] This is not the talk of a “doomsday” prophet — it is the talk of a realist.
[/quote]

I don’t know whether he is a realist or not, but he is confused about monetary aggregates… bank reserves are not part of M2, which renders much of that article invalid.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=zk]
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again now (I frequently repeat myself after several drinks, anyway). We need a new party in this country. Liberal on social issues. Strongly for science (e.g. stem-cell research and climate change). Against massive government but for government and regulation where needed and sensible (not reflexively averse to any and all government regulation or assistance or involvement). A pragmatic, flexible approach to problems without a rigid ideology. A basic decency on humanitarian issues.

There are so many people who agree with most of those stances. The first party that jumps on that platform (or a new party that stands on it) would, it is my guess, dominate for decades to come.

I’d be very interested to hear if people think I’m out in left field on this one, or why people think such a party is not happening.[/quote]

ZK, fwiw I agree 100%. If would very enthusiastically support the party/platform you described. And I agree that there seem to be an awful lot of people who would be on board.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=paramount]
There already is such a party: The Libertarian Party[/quote]

I think you missed this part:

(not reflexively averse to any and all government regulation or assistance or involvement)

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=dumbrenter]
Because US is the only country with debt denominated in its own currency. All other countries have their external debt denominated in some other currency. [/quote]

That’s just not the case… (I agree it is an important factor, but many countries issue bonds in their own currencies).

[quote=dumbrenter]
This big difference is being overlooked. If Australia print excessively, then at some point their trade partners will demand payments in USD and not in Australian currency. Not a lot of people hold their currency as reserves like they do for USD, so if Aus do print excessively, there will be more incentive for external entities to dump and make a run on their currency starting a downward spiral.
Question is does/if/when the same even applies to USD?
[/quote]

You could also argue that at some point, if we trash the USD enough, people won’t want to buy USD-denominated bonds. I agree that being the reserve currency has bought us a certain amount of leeway… but not an infinite amount. There are limits on how much we can print/monetize before we experience problems as a result. That’s really all I’m trying to argue here.

[quote=dumbrenter]
[quote=Rich Toscano]
In my view the result will be rising interest rates and excessive price inflation, OR severely tight monetary policy to head those off… either way is equivalent to “things getting harder.” [/quote]

Understood, but at least it will not be a debt crisis!
[/quote]

OK, well, that’s just quibbling about semantics and doesn’t really address the point I am trying to make.

[quote=dumbrenter]
Here is where I can flip your argument against your position. The last time we devalued, nothing earth shattering happened; yes there was some short term pain, but we made through it. So why does “this time it is different” apply now and not in ’74?

I do agree that those investors/speculators who get the timing of this asset markdown right will see returns that are “quite satisfactory”.[/quote]

I’m sorry, that doesn’t flip anything. “This time is different” is shorthand for when people try to rationalize that there won’t be consequences from economic imbalances or mispricings. It doesn’t mean that every instance is exactly the same as everything else, and I never said that’s the case. There are many differences between now and the 1970s, of course. In fact the imbalances are even worse now, which does portend that the outcome could be more severe — but acknowledging that fact isn’t the same as saying “this time is different” in the pejorative sense you are implying.

Also where did I use the word “earth shattering?” In the 70s we got years of double-digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and a stagnant economy — you try to dismiss that as “some short term pain” but I think it fits perfectly as an example of real economic consequences to loose monetary policy — which I only brought up in the first place because you invoked the 1970s as an example where other people suffered the consequences instead of the US.

Again, my original point was this — you said (paraphrased) “The US can print money to buy its own debt, so what’s the problem?” The problem is that monetizing huge amounts of debt has historically led to serious consequences. Just because we are getting away with it at this brief point in time doesn’t mean it’s a long term solution.

I highly recommend Kyle Bass’ latest letter to investors. This gives a good explanation… it is more focused on Japan, but the same arguments apply to all over-indebted countries that are trying to print away the debt… even if they have the reserve currency. A good read. http://www.scribd.com/doc/113643591/Kyle-Bass-Hayman-Capital-on-why-Japan-will-default-November-15th-2012

Happy Thanksgiving!

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=dumbrenter]
My question was in the context of debt. WE can make the debt disappear at the stroke of a keyboard if we choose to. A luxury that makes us very unique in the world.
[/quote]

How is that at all unique? Any country in the world could do that, with the exception of the members of the Euro (and the ECB as a whole could do that; it’s just that individual Euro countries can’t do it unilaterally).

[quote=dumbrenter]
How will it be seen that we can’t print at will? This is where I get lost. And why will things get harder?
[/quote]

In my view the result will be rising interest rates and excessive price inflation, OR severely tight monetary policy to head those off… either way is equivalent to “things getting harder.”

[quote=dumbrenter]
Given that US is 25% of world economy, and given the natural resources at our disposal, the world will need us more than we need them even after we screw them over by devaluing their dollar denominated assets. This is in spite of the aging population.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, I just don’t buy the old “this time is different”/”we’re different”/”the rules don’t apply to us” trope. Yes, we have certain advantages, of course… but doesn’t justify the idea that we can infinitely print money with no negative repercussions.

[quote=dumbrenter]
To give a historical perspective, everybody else got screwed over in ’74 when Nixon took USD off gold standard. That was some big time devaluation. That did not stop anybody from trading with us.[/quote]

Right, and we endured a decade of high inflation and economic stagnation. Things got harder, to bring it full circle. (Not that I believe it was the result of Nixon’s single action you noted, but rather, that action and the stagflation were both the results of years of overly loose monetary policy).

BTW I never said anything about people not trading with us. I was rebutting your idea that because we have a printing press, there’s no problem.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=dumbrenter]
To make things even interesting, the US can not only choose the interest rate, but the debt is denominated in paper that the US can print at will.
So where exactly is the problem? [/quote]

The problem is that it will eventually seen that we CAN’T print at will. Then things will get a lot harder.

[Author]

Posts