Generational theory, international history and current events
https://www.gdxforum.com/forum/
Which is contradictory...6.4% vs 0.1% difference. I used the first totals.What cost $100 in 1830 would cost $93.61 in 1840.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 1840 and 1830,
they would cost you $100 and $100.10 respectively.
Good post. The problem is that boomers still believe in this "rule of law" concept that doesn't actually exist any longer. The charter will be changed (even if via the proper channels), one way or another --- there are workarounds. Like all of the other unconstitutional things that have been done, and subsequently ignored, by the SCOTUS in just the past year.Navigator wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:09 pm Here is a very good interview with Dr. Lacy Hunt, a widely respected economist, on Deflation.
https://www.macrovoices.com/podcast-tra ... rinflation
He points out that all of the Government bailouts and interventions are Debt Based, and drag us further down into Deflation.
The Fed could only create inflation/hyper inflation if its charter is completely changed. The banks will prevent this from happening so long as they have political power (this is because hyperinflation would eliminate all debt and destroy the banks). And right now the banks have a LOT of power.
Biden was in the senate from 1973 until he became Obama's vice president. He was a senator from Delaware. Banks and Credit Card companies run Delaware. You don't stay in office in Delaware unless you kowtow to the Banks.
We can think that Biden is pro-CCP Chinese, but we KNOW that he is in league with the Banks and has been for a very very long time.
John wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:53 am ** 30-Jan-2021 World View: Shadowstats
http://www.shadowstats.com/
For a mere $175 per year, you too can learn why hyperinflation
is just around the corner.
I don't agree with him entirely. Here's what he says:Navigator wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:09 pm Here is a very good interview with Dr. Lacy Hunt, a widely respected economist, on Deflation.
https://www.macrovoices.com/podcast-tra ... rinflation
He points out that all of the Government bailouts and interventions are Debt Based, and drag us further down into Deflation.
The Fed could only create inflation/hyper inflation if its charter is completely changed. The banks will prevent this from happening so long as they have political power (this is because hyperinflation would eliminate all debt and destroy the banks). And right now the banks have a LOT of power.
Erik: Dr. Hunt, you make excellent points. But I want to push back just a little bit because the Federal Reserve Act is very, very clear in that it says that the Federal Reserve can only buy debt securities which are backed by the US government agency securities.
And, very recently, they literally reinterpreted that to say, well, if we put this little special-purpose vehicle in between and pretend that the Treasury is a party to this transaction, we can call junk bonds – literally junk bonds, the ETF full of junk bonds – sort of kind of a government security. And we’ll use the Federal Reserve to literally bail out the junk bond market. Which has happened.
So it seems to me like we’re in a political climate where, I don’t know what you want to call it, a loose interpretation of the Federal Reserve Act by regulators is being tolerated. Nobody is questioning that in court now.
So isn’t it true that they are effectively spending money to bail out the junk bond market and just kind of pretending that junk bonds are government bonds because they’ve created this little special-purpose vehicle mechanism, which to me seems like they’re just trying to undermine the intention of the law?
Dr. Hunt: Well, they are providing liquidity financing to debt that has already been issued. They are not providing additional funds for new debt.
Now, the fact of the matter that they are stretching the Federal Reserve law does not change the fact that this does not constitute money printing.
A little more about the above.Higgenbotham wrote: Sat Jun 06, 2020 2:59 pm I've often stated that the Fed counterfeits money. At the same time, you will hear conventional analysts say that the Fed (just buys) debt. Why the difference?
The difference comes in with regard to what the Fed is buying. If the Fed is buying short term t-bills or the most pristine corporate debt, that would not qualify as counterfeiting in my opinion. But that's not what the Fed is doing, at least not exclusively. If the Fed is buying corporate junk bonds, as they have been doing, without the Fed in the market that debt may be worth pennies on the dollar or may be worthless. If the Fed is buying that debt for more than what that same debt would sell for on the free market in the absence of the Fed's existence, the Fed is in fact counterfeiting money to buy that debt, in my opinion.
My analogy would be if you have a closet full of lightly worn clothing from the 80s that you can't sell on Ebay for more than about a buck or two apiece but the Fed comes along and offers you new department store prices for all of that old clothing, pays you for it, and puts it on their balance sheet for the price they paid, have they counterfeited money?
That's exactly right. The big picture is that they exchange solvency in a given sector (which will continue to increase in application since there are so many insolvent entities and sectors out there), in the meanwhile, for a worse balance sheet. That's why it's not quite counterfeiting - there is a cost to the balance sheet. But notice it's a "public good" type endeavor.Higgenbotham wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 3:54 pm They provided "solvency financing" and that's what they continue to do.