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: grusum who wrote (263912)	7/26/2010 1:19:28 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

grusum, thanks for point out peter's response to the automatic earth (nicole foss') deflationary arguments (it occurred about 28:00 into the podcast). i highlighted each one of his arguments and will share my thoughts. peter's points are (followed by my comments)... 1. people don't want dollars so dollars will lose value. peter doesn't go into why people won't dollar, he just proclaims it is true. but that is circular logic and doesn't prove anything. if you assume inflation rules the day, people won't dollars, therefore, inflation will rule the day. this didn't convince me. in addition, all other currencies are in a world of hurt. i hear the european banks are MUCH worse than american banks. canada is ready to implode due to their housing bubble bursting. china's bubble is about to collapse. these criminals are taking everyone down for the count. from chaos comes order... the new world order of authoritarian government by the new world order. 2. supply of goods will fall faster than the money supply. maybe, maybe not. peter proclaimed this and didn't offer any proof. i'm aware of his opinion, but i'm looking for data and information to form my own opinion. this didn't convince me. btw, if the supply of good falls at an extremely rapid pace, that leads to a collapse - unemployment could reach 30-40% or more, 100 million could be on food stamps, 30 million homes could foreclose... none of which is inflationary, let alone hyper inflationary. 3. it isn't sound to irresponsibly lend money, have it default and then print up money to replace it. completely agreed. peter didn't provide details, though. he just sort of, well, proclaimed it and didn't offer any kind of context. since peter offered no thoughts, i'll offer mine. lending money in an irresponsible fashion leads to unsustainable debt within the populace (populace very large, difficult to control!) and unsustainable IOUs to the banks (banks very small compared to populace, very easy to control). unsustainable debt is left to bury the very large populace, while the very small banks get bailed out for their losses in various criminals schemes. the irresponsible lending leads to massive inflation (stock market bubbles, housing bubbles, largest bubbles in the history of humanity!). the CPI never showed this credit bubble b/c it was rigged to exclude things that went up in bubble fashion. but the MASSIVE CREDIT INFLATION WAS REAL AND ALREADY HAPPENED, CPI or not. so the banks have tons of losses and are being back stopped so they can keep operating a bit longer and the public is being BURIED IN DEBT. the banks are controlling the cash they have and it isn't getting into the hands of a debt saturated populace. the velocity of money if shrinking - in spite of millions of people not paying on their mortgage and the banks sitting on the losses and lying about them. that isn't inflationary going forward, imho. 4. the fed will print forever and the dollar will lose its value. $5k, $10k will go to each tax payer. again, peter proclaims this. i couldn't disagree more and the current actions of the criminal banking cartel - the people who actually control money and credit in this country - are consistent with my view and inconsistent with peter's view. greenspan and bernanke are all about saving the banks and increasing their power and control and influence. not the PERIOD. "." nothing comes after that "." (period). note to you and anyone else that is reading this - the fed doesn't a flying shiyat about you or the citizenry. we are simply sheep they look to sheer... and sheer they have. so i call complete bull sht on this one. they won't give the people money, they want to buy up their assets for pennies on the dollar. the meager debt they created to "stimulate" the economy was simply done for the benefit of the banks and their corporations. maybe a little bit for the people, but only to keep their criminal thieving moving right along - an advertising expense. why would the banks devalue their own money? peter hasn't answered that - he pretends like obama and frank are making the calls on who gets money and when. he's WRONG. the fed tells congress to f off with regularity and the congress says, "Ooh-Kaay!" the fed runs the show for the benefit of the criminal banking cartel. they will not destroy their wealth in order to benefit the little people. h*ll, everything they've done to date is to dump all their toxic trash onto the little people so we can pay for their debts. we aren't zimbabwe. our credit expansion is not similar to zimbabwe or anything else. peter actually talks like the fed is printing money. they aren't printing money, they are printing debt. debt is much different than cash. when you spend $20 on your credit card, you are POORER than you were before you spent it (assuming no grace period - and treasuries have no grace period). every time the fed prints debt we get more poor, sapping our wealth so that we have less money with which to buy stuff. yes, the bankers get the wealth, but they hoard it. in addition, if the second the government starts to hand out peter's free money concept, PRIVATE LENDING STOPS IN ITS TRACKS. nobody will lend anymore - what happens? interest rates will explode, debt defaults will explode and the economy will collapse. the ruling class will see their wealth evaporate (again, why would they do that - they control the game) and their banks close due to banking runs. 5. peter claims prices aren't falling during this recession, so inflationary forces are strong enough to fight off deflationary forces. this is kind of ironic. i bet peter decried the CPI when it showed 3% growth as housing was exploding 20% a year. he was right then, CPI was completely rigged to hide inflation and the largest credit bubble in the history of the planet. now he uses that same index to prove that deflation isn't happening? -lol- that's inconsistent. housing prices are way off their high. stocks are way off their high. gas is 50% off its high. the food i buy is about the same. housing, stocks and gas make up the majority of everyone's budget and they are waaaaay down. i'd also add that we aren't even anywhere near TSHTF moment when everything just collapses. we have $600-1600 trillion - with a "t" - in debt that was created without creating anything in the real world of corresponding value. ----------------------------------------------- i like peter and i think he's a good guy and he's speaking from his conscience. i think he's wrong - likely thinking the government will control the money and credit instead of private bankers. i'm not completely eliminating some kind of dollar devaluation, though, but i don't see it coming until the dollar is replaced as the world's reserve currency.