2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum

GLD 368.29

+0.6%

4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TobagoJack who wrote (98465)	2/2/2013 1:18:41 AM
From: carranza2	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) of 217561

Went to a lecture Thursday night by an economic historian who tried to compare 1929 and 2008. He only had 45 minutes so his spiel was necessarily abbreviated and therefore full of gaps. At post-lecture Q&A, I asked what I thought was a good question which he essentially couldn't answer. The question: "Professor, given the near-parabolic increase in money supply since 2008, why isn't the USD worth substantially less than it presently is?" If he had read this thread, he'd know that Bart has shown that if economically inactive excess bank reserves are deducted from the base, its growth is not quite as parabolic as it might otherwise seem. But those reserves aren't going to disappear. They'll enter the economy sooner or later, and that will be when gold goes nuts, the USD falters, and inflation begins in earnest. When will this be? Obviously, when the banks think the recovery is sufficiently far along that they will determine that putting the excess reserves to use is more profitable than keeping them inactive. We're getting there.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next