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 Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (88563)	9/8/2007 7:38:29 PM
From: Sr K	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

If Wayne Angel still works for Bear Stearns, he has want-to-be-a-survivor bias.

To: GraceZ who wrote (88563)	9/8/2007 11:21:49 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Who sez the TBond or even the TBill rate is right? The markets? Personally speaking, I know Angel's name, that he was a former Fed governor, and I've seen him appear from time to time on CNBC. However, I'm not well versed with his positions (will have to study up on his analytical prowess). But again.. the problem we see is that people are more willing to place their trust in governmental bonds than they are in (even AAA rated) corporate paper. Governmental bonds represent public debt (deficit spending). That's what Keynes would refer to as "animal spirits" and it's indicative that the Fed has really found itself in a position where it has drastically misread the fear in the public markets and placed itself in a position where it's more about the Fed "credibility" than acting on market related data in the debt markets. Now either the Fed has to resolve the inverted yield curve by dropping rates, or the Government has to flood the market with new issuances of debt in order to absorb that sudden increase in demand. But to say that permitting a bubble to appear in the bond markets as yields collapse from the sudden influx of frightened investor capital is a healthy thing strikes me as odd. Why is a bond bubble any better than a stock market bubble? Of course, the other possibility is that the Fed is INTENTIONALLY ENGINEERING a recession, not so much to stifle US economic growth, but to deal a blow to China's inflated economy. Without the American consumer to drive China's economy and markets, it's markets will collapse. And given that China represents a potentially nasty stock market bubble of its own, could it be that the Fed is focused more on popping THAT bubble, no matter what the cost to the US economy? The results would certainly be deflationary with regard to global commodity prices. Of course, this is one of my more conspiratorial perspectives. But there's no doubt that China's rapid demand for commodities has drastically inflated global commodity prices. Hawk

To: GraceZ who wrote (88563)	9/8/2007 11:33:40 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 306849

Starting my reading on Angel. Found this, and I have to agree with a good portion of his logic. But then again, maybe I'm missing some alternative and equally logical perspective here: mosler.org You certainly have a hard time arguing with the following points: Most economists would prefer to see corporate and other business debt grow more while household and government debt grew less. Few are willing to recognize that when household and government debt grows too slowly then growth in business debt abruptly slows as businesses have no need to borrow to finance an increase in employment and output. That is exactly what happened to the growth of business debt in 1999 and 2000 as a 12.2% growth of business debt in 1998 slowed in the next four years to 11.2%, 9.5%, 6% and 2.8%. Hawk