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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (45420)	11/14/2005 3:04:42 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Where did I say I do not trust the St. Louis FED? That is a gross distortion of anything I said. In 45404 you said: MZM: research.stlouisfed.org M2: research.stlouisfed.org MZM is a total joke as for determing moiney supply. M2 is fatally flawed as well. I can only read what you write. If you refer to my link to St Louis and claim MZM is a joke, I can only infer you don't trust St Louis' published data. St Louis has been the preferred provider for this data for 30 years and provides it to some of the other branches. Furthermore, I see you did not even bother to look for the post where I explained the flaws of MZM. I haven't been following this thread until today. However, there are no "flaws" in MZM. Or rather Shostak explained the flaws of the entire M series. I would be happy to show how there's flaws in Shostak. I was an insider to the federal reserve system for decades until the mid '80s. Like everyone else who hangs around there I dropped out of it and I'm glad I did. As for not trusting the St. Louis Fed, this is not matter of trust in the number, it is a question as to whether MZM is of any use. NY Fed agrees with this position. I tend to agree with it too. FED publishes it because it gets rid of Gold Bug nuisances. If it is not (and I do not believe it is of much use), so who cares if one trusts it or not? Well, there's some value in keeping these money measures. For the record, I have no reason to doubt the number given by the St. Louis Fed. I just happen to agree with Shostak that it is fatally flawed and therefore useless. Why not give me the post number so I can show you the flaws in Shostak's reasonings. How do I know they're there? What is there, there to be flawed? You go about attacking me when you can not so much as do a simple search on MZM in which you would have found the following post referencing a couple of the most highly respected economists that you can find. I taught them so what can they tell me? And, by the way, I helped to compose the definition of MZM. I've made quite a lot of contribution to the world of professional finance and academia, but I'd trade it all for one of Miltie's $15 hot dogs.