Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (54873)	6/21/2000 7:28:00 PM
From: UnBelievable	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

By Any Statistical Measure the Rate of Growth of Money Significantly Exceeds the Rate of Growth of Real Goods and Services. Everything else is looking in the rear view mirror.

To: Wayners who wrote (54873)	6/21/2000 7:36:00 PM
From: HairBall	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99985

Wayne Van Scoyoc: A couple of money supply views... An article March 31, 2000 from the AMERICAN MONETARY INSTITUTE monetary.org Has Alan Greenspan Gone Mad? or How the Federal Reserve Confuses Good Growth with Bad smart.net Regards, LG

To: Wayners who wrote (54873)	6/21/2000 7:42:00 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Respond to of 99985

i agree with that. especially in view of the fact that the Fed is NOT restricted to using the data put out by the BLS if it thinks them questionable. there are lots of private sector institutes that are collating data, and as far as i know the Fed does in fact use those in its decision process. my own view is this: we get certain data that have proven to be contentious. several academic researchers have recently begun to question the validity of the methodologies employed specifically to calculate productivity data, and the details of recent inflation reports have spurred considerable debate as well when compared to easily verifiable price developments in spot and futures markets. the jobs data likewise are pretty much in conflict with e.g. the direction jobless claims are taking. but imo the Fed should simply put these contentious data sets aside and concentrate on the objectively verifiable imbalances in the economy, and the two most glaring are the growth in private sector debt and the current account/trade deficit. these it should endeavor to bring under control, and if a cyclical bear market in stocks is the price, so be it. stocks will recover again with the economy on a sounder footing. i am very much opposed to the theory that the most desirable policy goal is simply a continuation of the expansion. the problem with this is that the quality of credit suffers ever more and malinvestment becomes ever more frequent and sizeable in a credit induced expansion that never corrects. it can be seen throughout economic history that smaller economic cycles are preferable over larger ones, as the imbalances get corrected more frequently instead of being allowed to build up. eventually no amount of policy fiddling will be able to avoid a bust, and the bust need not be as great as it will likely be if the imbalances continue to grow. the asset bubble in real estate and financial assets is really only a side-effect of all this, a symptom if you want.