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: ahhaha who wrote (3254)10/22/2001 4:20:33 PM
From: ahhahaRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 24758
 
Just when you thought he was ok...

Greenspan Says Price Target Wouldn't Help Fed Policy
By Michael McKee

Choosing a specific inflation target for the Federal Reserve to meet wouldn't help the central bank set interest rates, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said.


Yes, they couldn't do it.

Some analysts, including Fed Governor Laurence Meyer, have advocated inflation targeting as a way to restrain inflation expectations and promote open decision-making at the Fed.

Greenspan said that wouldn't work, because it is becoming ever more difficult to measure inflation in an age of rapid improvement in medical care, software, and other products that depend on innovations in technology.


It wouldn't work, but not for that reason. It wouldn't work because you can't target anything except money supply, and you can't target inflation because it's a result of other factors. AG is obfuscating here.

``A specific numerical inflation target would represent an unhelpful and false precision,'' Greenspan told a monetary policy conference sponsored by the St. Louis Fed Bank.

The Fed chairman didn't discuss current U.S. economic conditions or Fed interest-rate policy in his remarks.

In a July 17 speech, Meyer, whose term on the Board of Governors expires Jan. 31, called for a 2 percent inflation target. That would help frame monetary policy discussions among Fed officials, and help investors anticipate when interest rates would be changed. That would help hold down market interest rates, Meyer said in his speech.


No. It would just lock in 2% as the base rate. Why not lock in 0%? Because it isn't possible with interest rate targeting. No one there understands this.

Greenspan disagreed, offering his own, long-held view that ``price stability is best thought of as an environment in which inflation is so low and stable over time that it does not materially enter in the decisions of households and firms.''

How is that any different than Meyer's objective? Besides, there can't be an inflation that remains constant at some arbitrary rate. Sooner or later it accelerates because the effect of interest rate targeting raises the inflation rate from whatever is its apparent constancy.

`Complex' Economy

Because the economy is so ``complex and changeable'' the Fed can only influence it in ``nominal,'' or non-inflation adjusted terms, he said. Therefore, the central bank can say explicitly that it wants ``price stability'' and ``maximum sustainable growth'' in general terms, but it can't pin down what either number is or should be at a particular time.


There you have it. An explicit admission that they can't do what they pretend to do, for when does what they did become wrong?

A policy ``rule,'' which would allow Fed officials to plug in economic variables and know what to do with interest rates, would be helpful, Greenspan said.

This statement dooms long term prosperity for as long as he is Chairman.

``I hope that someday we can find a reasonable mechanical rule or a reasonably mechanical way in which we can conduct policy. I haven't found it yet,'' he said.

Another explicit admission that he doesn't understand that FED interference by setting interest rates is all the problem. No mechanical rule is needed nor can it exist, because its existence refutes its intent, so he hopes for an absurd contradiction in terms.

The problem is, no one has yet devised a rule that doesn't depend on opinion in its application, he said.

But above he was hoping for a mechanical rule. That's a rule above opinion. In a way he's saying the FED can't operate on principle because they have to be expedient. Otherwise, in their view if they operated on principle the world would devolve because there was no civilization before 1913.

``Like anything else it involves a forecast, and forecasts are just that, they are projections into the unknown,'' he said.

...everyone is shouting "Which side are you on!" and ezra pound and ts.elliot fighting in the captain's tower while calypso singers laugh at them and fishermen throw flowers...

``Regrettably, what we do at the moment is essentially the least-worst way of going about it.''

The bust will be blamed on you, bud.



To: ahhaha who wrote (3254)10/24/2001 6:31:38 PM
From: frankw1900Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 24758
 
I am an amateur! I have to get to speed on this.

Not marginal interference, interference at the margin through self destroying RPs which is a
form of potential money creation


I had proposed a thesis that the persistent divergence between these rates of compensation
is permitted by FED's interference at the margin in the cost of money.
[post 3248]

cost of money = interest rate

at the margin = where marginal cost equals marginal revenue

Marginal worker = next worker hired that reduces maximum profit. (When I ran a small business I had to ask how long would that worker have the profit reducing status since I had minimal pricing power - I had to buy machinery for him to run., also).

Marginal change = a unit change of anything (grain on the front 120 pays well, but not back 40 - grow hay there; could have planted 20 more of grain on back 40 but would have gone down to break even with the 20th).

1. RPs. Fixed term, fixed rate. Lend the money as in buy the security , hold it to term, sell it back, get the rate. Conditions of money creation are there: promises, loans, repayment, investment, human effort

2. RPs could be leveraged: using the bought security as collateral, buy more securities, do it again. The amount of collateral being value of the securities discounted by something like prevailing interest rate. The number of times you could do this is theoretically determined by the interest rate - the lower the rate, the more times you could theoretically leverage. Drive for profit tempts lender to leverage more often as rates diminish. Anyone with large cash or security positions (banks, businesses, governments) can participate. RP markets are gigantic…. Are1 and/or 2 the potential and actual money creation you have in mind?

The existence of this new money raises prices. But not uniformly in a given period - wages, for instance, could shoot ahead of other prices due particular business conditions of the period..

Fed interference at the margin in cost of money by setting rates (big, sudden change or no change), stops RP market from getting, by small increments (by discovery), to where interest = marginal cost = marginal revenue. Similarly with other interest sensitive markets.

This may be generalized: It's the interference with the discovery process of economic participants, (the market), which is the dangerous practice. Absent discovery, which is empirical and has feedback, participants have to fall back on superstitious/magical thinking - taking cues from "wealth effect, envy," or gnomic statements from AG or talking heads at Morgan Stanley, etc.

Are my changes in [….?], below, correct?

Not marginal interference, interference at the margin through self destroying RPs which is a
form of potential money creation far greater than the potential money creation of permanent
reserves even while [though?] permanent reserves are far more potent, but while [right now?] FED is stingy and provides little permanent reserves(currently),
.

The strike interest rate of the RPs is set at a fixed constant over time of life rate and so while they [RPs?] exist the instantaneous desire of higher compensation seekers must remain also constant to keep prices of labor from rising, but it doesn't. [Because?] The wealth effect, envy, keeps expectations for more compensation rising.