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.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LTK007 who wrote (77532)5/8/2008 2:31:26 PM
From: Crimson Ghost  Respond to of 89467
 
I don't think anybody believes these numbers.

The financial establishment PRETENDS to believe them because "low" inflation justifies low interest rates which keeps asset bubbles levitated.

But with he disparity between reported and real inflation growing ever wider as prices for life's necessities surge, the financial establishment risks losing what little credibility it has left unless they change course dramatically and start to deal with the real world.



To: LTK007 who wrote (77532)5/8/2008 4:23:00 PM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
The left should support higher interest rates.

Amy Goodman is Wrong About Food Price Inflation



If the competition between Activists and Big Business were played out as a baseball game, we would see the Activists lineup featuring a fantastic infield and pitching staff, but no outfield, probably because the brawn needed to throw from center field to home plate is missing in left wing circles.

Big Business does not have nearly the same talent and brain power, but they do have a decent outfield so when these two teams play, Big Business hits loopy inside-the-park home runs that win ball games while Activists agonize and bicker over strategy.

Amy Goodman's recent comments regarding the current food crisis is a case in point.

alternet.org

The recent surge in food prices, and commodity prices across the globe is not caused by the actions of speculators, as she suggests. Sure, speculators play a part, but blaming speculators for this surge in food prices is like blaming looters for the food shortages and riots in Haiti. Speculators and looters are just grabbing what they can grab while the grabbing is good; they don't cause the problem.

The deeper problem, the problem that Activists need to talk about correcting, but never do, because, in their mind, it means (erroneously) eliminating jobs -- is the problem of extremely low interest rates and too much money in circulation -- not too little. That's right. Too much money, not too little. Keep in mind that when people talk about money, they falsely think they are talking about something with limited availability whose value ebbs and flows based on supply and demand. No. None of that kind of asset backed money is used by any government in the world today. Today's global money supply is actually just trillions worth of interest bearing IOU's that people, companies and countries swap with each other in a global game of fiat currency chicken. The one holding the biggest stash of fiat currency loses. This is something German banks just discovered. They thought they were holding U.S. AAA mortgage backed paper. Ooops.

The fact that virtually all of the problems identified by Activists as threats are actually the result of there being too much of these IOU's instead of there not being enough of them goes against every bone in Activist's bodies. And yet, there it is. The current food crisis a prime example.

The Right Wing knows, but isn't saying because they do not want to kill the golden fiat currency goose, that the systemic problem underpinning the food crisis is the inability of American and various world central banks to allow for the price of money to be set by the market instead of the cheap money loving Politburo of America's Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). To allow the markets to set interest rates would mean less fiat currency and less fees for bankers, so they naturally override the system and make money artificially cheap to pay for mergers and acquisitions and pay themselves really fat year-end bonuses.

If the price of money, or interest rates (the more familiar term), were set by the supply and demand of the market; the dot-com boom and bust, housing boom and bust, and now agricultural boom (the bust has yet to be written) would not have inflated the global commodity markets the way that it has.

Activists need to get their head around this and address this problem with a degree of financial literacy that is currently lacking. When Amy Goodman had Alan Greenspan on her show recently, neither Amy Goodman nor guest Naomi Klein touched on the issue of money supply. It was actually Jon Stewart in his interview with Alan Greenspan who scored a solid home run against the former Fed Chairman when he rightly made the connection between money supply and price inflation.

To remedy the 'hole in center field,' (to keep my baseball analogy going) the Left needs to argue for higher interest rates. Additionally, a study of how interest rates are set needs to be commissioned, followed by a discussion of whether or not America wants to be a a free market economy or continue as it is now - a command and control communist-like Corporate Union without a free market price discovery mechanism setting interest rates.

Additionally, the Left in America must not be suckered into falling into the trap of believing what the Right tells them -- that raising interest rates means economic doom and job loss. Nonsense. Sure, raising the price of capital adds cost but so what? It also adds stability, reduces volatility, increases returns on savings and pensions, cuts inflation, discourages rogue traders and reckless speculation and supports the dollar. Plus, if interest rates were set by market forces instead of government fiat the playing field would be level and encourage more entrepreneurs of whatever party affiliation to start more companies and create more jobs -- way more than would possibly be lost by an increase in interest rates. Conversely, low rates encourage monopolies that results in fewer jobs.

The Left in America needs to beef up on its macro-economics understanding of money and credit before leaping into the fray of discussing global food prices or be left to stare perplexed as another inside-the-park home run hit by the Right and Big Business who add more runs the score board virtually unopposed.

The Huffington Post



To: LTK007 who wrote (77532)5/9/2008 2:48:01 AM
From: Threshold  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Dems don't question Repub numbers and vice versa. Ain't democracy great in a two party system. The punch bowl is never removed, it is simply passed on with the torch, and in recent times the rotating monarchy. Surely Queen Hillary would end this deception.

Billionaire California bond manager Bill Gross calls it "a haute con job." Bloomberg News columnist John Wasik describes it as "a testament to the art of economic spin." More and more shoppers and consumer simply disbelieve it.

The subject of this scorn is the federal government's vaunted Consumer Price Index or CPI. Americans are now beginning to understand that this indicator has its own share of gimmicks not unlike a sub-prime mortgage or the six pages of fine print that accompanies your credit card agreement.

Some of these CPI ingredients -- product substitution weightings, "hedonics" (price reductions for added product quality or satisfaction), and use of owner's equivalent rent (instead of home ownership costs) -- have a comic aspect suitable to mockery by Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart. But in a larger sense, they're not remotely funny. That's because the federal minimalization and misrepresentation of inflation, pursued statistically over the last 25 years, has been the main buttress of Washington's over-favorable and self-serving portraiture of the U.S. economy.

Distortions aplenty have followed. Some of the most pernicious include the shortchanging of federal pension and Social Security obligations and cost of living increases, a parallel shortchanging of cost-of-living increases in wage contracts tied to the federal CPI, the suppression of equitable interest payments on bank accounts and certificates of deposit, and the camouflaging of weak U.S. economic growth through inadequate adjustments for inflation. The benefits to the executive branch in Washington jump out -- huge annual federal savings on Social Security and pension outlays, as well as on the amount of interest paid on the federal government's multi-trillion-dollar debt. Some $250 billion a year could be involved.

If many individuals are losers, many businesses and financial institutions have been winners. Minimal cost-of-living increases favor corporations, while low interest rates make money cheaper to the financial sector. In particular, the gargantuan $10 trillion increase in financial-sector debt since 1994 could become unmanageable if mounting inflation forced borrowing costs up to 8% or 9%. And it is axiomatic regarding equities that when rates rise in the bond market, that competition usually undercuts stock market values.

In short, there have been three big gainers from understatement of U.S. inflation: the federal government, wage-paying businesses and the institutions and markets of the swollen U.S. financial sector. But skeptics have a weighty counter: Okay, it's easy to understand how they all might profit from understating inflation. But if the understatement is patently false, how can they hope to get away with it?

In fact, the belief by many conservative U.S. economists that inflation is under control, despite global indications to the contrary (including soaring commodity and energy prices), has a major ideological component -- their fidelity to monetarist economic principles (that only money supply expansion can create inflation) and to the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (that markets process all available information, so that if inflation were serious, markets would have reacted already). As late as January, monetarists on the Federal Reserve Board, notably Chairman Ben Bernanke and colleague Frederic Mishkin, believed in the new-version CPI and argued that U.S. inflationary expectations were safely "anchored."

Financial economists and money managers generally agree. A late April survey of 120 U.S. institutional money managers by Barron's, the financial weekly, found that on average, they predicted a CPI inflation rate of 2.72% in December 2008 and just 2.79% in December 2009. Elsewhere in the world, central bankers and politicians are worrying about another wave of commodity inflation akin to that in the 1970s, but U.S. money managers take comfort in the Efficient Market Hypothesis and in the wisdom and sanctity of the CPI.

Critics, by contrast, smell a potential disaster. Oil is up over 80 percent in the last twelve months. The New York Times' consumer reporter, W.P. Dunleavy, wrote on May 3 that his own groceries now cost $587 a month, up from $400 a year earlier. That's a 40 percent increase. Reports in the financial press make frequent reference to foreign investors who distrust the U.S. dollar because they calculate true U.S. inflation at 6% to 9% including food and energy.

California economist John Williams, who runs an organization called Shadow Statistics, contends that if Washington still used the CPI measurements applied back in the 1970s, inflation would be in the 10 percent range. My own analysis, set out in much more detail in an article in the May issue of Harper's, comports with that of the cynical foreign investors.

Therein lies the danger. If the current inflation rate is really 6-9 percent instead of the 2-3 percent claimed by government and most U.S. money managers, then Washington's official estimates that the economy still grew at a rate of some 0.6 percent in the first quarter of 2008 become nonsense. Subtracting a 6-9 percent inflation rate from nominal GDP growth would identify an economy that was deteriorating and shrinking, not growing. Concerned foreign dollar-holders would become even more concerned.

In theory, a vigilant Congress might want to hold hearings, but in practice I suspect not. Democratic presidents (notably Bill Clinton) have been involved in the numbers game along with Republican administrations. Neither party has clean hands. Far more likely that any serious investigation will be mounted clandestinely by central banks or sovereign wealth funds in places like China, Singapore and Saudi Arabia as part of their ongoing study of just how much longer they can continue to support a deteriorating U.S. dollar. It is not a happy prospect.

Kevin Phillips's new book Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism was published by Viking in April. His article on untrustworthy government statistics ("Numbers Racket") appears in the May issue of Harper's.