SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GraceZ who wrote (951)2/1/2001 11:35:41 AM
From: ahhahaRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 24758
 
and the collapse of the NAZ bubble has shown quite nicely why investments do not equal savings.

This claim is false. It is a truism that savings = investment. The nominal value of savings can fluctuate in whatever form the savings are held.

and now look at the obvious inflationary forces that have reared their head, like energy, shelter costs, medical expenses, certain foodstuffs and metals,

They were only the beginnings of structural inflation and why the FED tightened. What's at issue is not that FED did what they had to do, it is when and how they did it. If the market was in control, these component price changes wouldn't have been able to advance. That includes oil, because the market would have and indeed, did, raise rates early, and very gradually would have slowed growth and therefore the demand for oil. That would have made it tougher for OPEC to raise the price at least to the extent they did. FED resisted what the market was doing. When FED fixes a price below the cost the market determines, the resulting quantity of money created is excessive.

at some point then, it is conceivable that further attempts at monetary inflation meet with no more takers.

This is true but it takes far worse circumstances before people are scared away from raw money.

this i believe may be one of the main reasons why easy Al's middle name is 'moral hazard'. he has graduated to the art of the pre-emptive bail-out by now whose moves on rates and activities in the repo markets are constantly dictated by crisis situations involving the fickleness of market liquidity.

This is true and it's all the fault of authority trying to do what markets were designed to do.

it has been suggested that huge amounts of debt rollovers had to be completed in January, and that the surprise cut was mainly motivated by the potential for crisis the situation harbored. liquidity in the corporate bond market had done a disappearing act after all. this sounds eminently plausible to me.

This is false. Almost all the motivation was to prevent the psychological reaction to a possible stock market crash. It's equally specious though. They have to trust people because in the final analysis they do anyway.