How are we going to pay for all this shit?

if you say so Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

he has a creestal globe. so he aught to know so.

is that like nuke going off everywhere almost everyone die, less than 100 still living Originally Posted by lolhahaha

like this?

..."WTF Happened in 1971?"... Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

While not necessarily a fan of Politico, the below article caught my attention. Starts out as a love fest of the guy, but in my mind he seems to echo my fears of coming inflation and the havoc that may well ensue as a result. Especially considering some recent FED remarks along the lines of: dang, that inflation thing might actually exist and be a tough and sticky booger.

The Fed’s Doomsday Prophet Has a Dire Warning About Where We’re Headed

...While Hoenig was concerned about inflation, that isn’t what solely what drove him to lodge his string of dissents. The historical record shows that Hoenig was worried primarily that the Fed was taking a risky path that would deepen income inequality, stoke dangerous asset bubbles and enrich the biggest banks over everyone else. He also warned that it would suck the Fed into a money-printing quagmire that the central bank would not be able to escape without destabilizing the entire financial system...

...As a bank examiner, Hoenig realized another very important thing. Easy money policies don’t just drive up the price of consumer goods, like bread and cars. The money also drives up price of assets like stocks, bonds and real estate. During the 1970s, low interest rates fueled demand for assets, which eventually inflated asset bubbles across the Midwest, including in heavy farming states, such as Kansas and Nebraska, and in the energy-producing state of Oklahoma. When asset prices like this rise quickly, it creates that dreaded thing called an asset bubble...

...“There is no painless solution,” Hoenig said in a recent interview. “It’s going to be difficult. And the longer you wait the more painful it will end up being.”...

Maybe Yogi Berra was right after all; It's like deja vu all over again.

https://t.me/rrndaily/149301

From my missives

https://cleverjourneys.com/2021/12/2...all-time-high/

More missives

those govt. doesn't look like they're gonna stop anytime soon.

BASEL 3 = the Banks have to Prove they have the GOLD supplies to back their worthless fiat currency we know they can't.
Basel 3 = end game.

Could someone please explain to me what bambino just posted! Originally Posted by WTF

He answered "no," so maybe Bambino is still waiting on his daily dose of missives from "Q."

Apparently the link he posted takes you to something produced by the "Christian Patriots."

That group might be a good fit for you when you decide that the brand of lunacy served up by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood just isn't quite amped-up enough to suit your tastes! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

And what are your daily doses of missives? From where? The whole system is corrupt. And you’re arrogant enough to think you know what’s going on. You don’t. Originally Posted by bambino

Way to go, Bambi! Yes this line of argument will go well for you. Nothing like being hectored on "what's going on in the world" by the forum's most prolific conspiracy-monger!

This post was especially amusing:

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...postcount=1142

Seriously? The military stormed the White House and forced then-president Bill Clinton to secretly sign legislation at gunpoint? LOL!

You people make the clowns who claim that the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked look downright rational by comparison!

.

Can't wait for next up! The most formidable lawyer ever to come out of Texas versus the Harvard divinity student Originally Posted by Tiny

(Should the next "next up" be discussion of whether ending gold convertibility was a good (or forced!) thing, or whether Jimmy Carter(!) undertook bold anti-Soviet action during the Cold War?)

My take on why the Reagan record did not match the rhetoric:

(For those not familiar with his background, the "Harvard divinity student" Tiny referred to here is David Stockman.)

When Reagan entered the Oval Office in 1981, conservatives expected a golden age of tax reductions and cuts in the size, scope, and cost of government. Although the first part occurred soon enough, the second never even came close to materializing.

For his first-term chief of staff, Reagan hired Jim Baker, an imposing Texan with a rather forceful personality. Having long been the George H.W. Bush consigliere, he was the furthest thing from a "movement conservative." Rather, he viewed himself as a practitioner of "realpolitik."

To that end, he very well may have thought that "his man's" best interests might be served by growing government in the same fashion that Nixon called for during his 1971 state of the union speech, in which he pushed congress to pass an expanded "full employment" budget. After all, Baker was an active party fund raiser at that time. (And many thought "his man" was actually GHWB, although of course the interests of the president and VP were in most respects congruent.)

Stockman had different ideas, needless to say. As a true-blue conservative/libertarian, he had visions of trimming back the New Deal and Great Society to the maximum extent practicable.

But it was not to be. Baker and Stockman had heated words from time to time, and the former always prevailed. Reagan had given him pretty much of a free hand, and he ran the White House with an iron fist.

Concerning real rollbacks in the growth of government spending (let alone actual cuts!), very few Republicans in the House were firmly on board (and no Democrats at all).

So government spending grew unabated during the Reagan era. And not just defense spending, in fact.

(Most of the above is from a draft copy for a blog post I wrote in 2007.)

.

While not necessarily a fan of Politico, the below article caught my attention. Starts out as a love fest of the guy, but in my mind he seems to echo my fears of coming inflation and the havoc that may well ensue as a result. Especially considering some recent FED remarks along the lines of: dang, that inflation thing might actually exist and be a tough and sticky booger.

The Fed’s Doomsday Prophet Has a Dire Warning About Where We’re Headed

...While Hoenig was concerned about inflation, that isn’t what solely what drove him to lodge his string of dissents. The historical record shows that Hoenig was worried primarily that the Fed was taking a risky path that would deepen income inequality, stoke dangerous asset bubbles and enrich the biggest banks over everyone else. He also warned that it would suck the Fed into a money-printing quagmire that the central bank would not be able to escape without destabilizing the entire financial system...

...As a bank examiner, Hoenig realized another very important thing. Easy money policies don’t just drive up the price of consumer goods, like bread and cars. The money also drives up price of assets like stocks, bonds and real estate. During the 1970s, low interest rates fueled demand for assets, which eventually inflated asset bubbles across the Midwest, including in heavy farming states, such as Kansas and Nebraska, and in the energy-producing state of Oklahoma. When asset prices like this rise quickly, it creates that dreaded thing called an asset bubble...

...“There is no painless solution,” Hoenig said in a recent interview. “It’s going to be difficult. And the longer you wait the more painful it will end up being.”...

Maybe Yogi Berra was right after all; It's like deja vu all over again.
Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

(In some respects, I think your post title "Are we the frog in boiling water?" may be fully apt, given the current circumstances!)

There's a lot to unpack here -- I'll check back in after seeing what visiting family members might want to do today and tomorrow. (And after checking in to see whether anything interesting takes place on a football field!)

One point to ponder here, though, might be this:

Asset inflation vs. consumer price inflation.

I've mentioned before that the term "trickle-down economics" might not be an apt way to describe what didn't actually happen during the Reagan years (but may have been intended by some talkers and writers back in the 1970s).

How about this?

"Trickle-Down Economics, Version 2.0. Now Much Bigger and Stronger Than the Original"

Wouldn't interest rate suppression and multiple iterations of quantitative easing fit that description fairly closely?

.

(Should the next "next up" be discussion of whether ending gold convertibility was a good (or forced!) thing, or whether Jimmy Carter(!) undertook bold anti-Soviet action during the Cold War?)

My take on why the Reagan record did not match the rhetoric:

(For those not familiar with his background, the "Harvard divinity student" Tiny referred to here is David Stockman.)

When Reagan entered the Oval Office in 1981, conservatives expected a golden age of tax reductions and cuts in the size, scope, and cost of government. Although the first part occurred soon enough, the second never even came close to materializing.

For his first-term chief of staff, Reagan hired Jim Baker, an imposing Texan with a rather forceful personality. Having long been the George H.W. Bush consigliere, he was the furthest thing from a "movement conservative." Rather, he viewed himself as a practitioner of "realpolitik."

To that end, he very well may have thought that "his man's" best interests might be served by growing government in the same fashion that Nixon called for during his 1971 state of the union speech, in which he pushed congress to pass an expanded "full employment" budget. After all, Baker was an active party fund raiser at that time. (And many thought "his man" was actually GHWB, although of course the interests of the president and VP were in most respects congruent.)

Stockman had different ideas, needless to say. As a true-blue conservative/libertarian, he had visions of trimming back the New Deal and Great Society to the maximum extent practicable.

But it was not to be. Baker and Stockman had heated words from time to time, and the former always prevailed. Reagan had given him pretty much of a free hand, and he ran the White House with an iron fist.

Concerning real rollbacks in the growth of government spending (let alone actual cuts!), very few Republicans in the House were firmly on board (and no Democrats at all).

So government spending grew unabated during the Reagan era. And not just defense spending, in fact.

(Most of the above is from a draft copy for a blog post I wrote in 2007.)

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I read Stockman's book, the Triumph of Politics, but it's been a long time. I recall that, as you say, there was little support in Congress to control spending, despite the convictions of Reagan. And Reagan himself had no desire to prune the defense budget. Very interesting, the part about James Baker in your post.

As to gold convertibility or Carter and the Ruskies, I vote for gold! That's because (a) it's a more interesting topic, and (b) whatever you have to say about "Jimmy" (as my grandfather, a native Georgian, used to fondly call him), is going to buttress WTF's case in our argument about Reagan.

"Trickle-Down Economics, Version 2.0. Now Much Bigger and Stronger Than the Original"


Wouldn't interest rate suppression and multiple iterations of quantitative easing fit that description fairly closely?

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Well, they hurt people who rely on interest income for retirement. And help those who invest in real estate, shares, businesses and the like, who tend to be wealthier than many Americans who are living paycheck-to-paycheck.

As to gold convertibility or Carter and the Ruskies, I vote for gold! That's because (a) it's a more interesting topic, and (b) whatever you have to say about "Jimmy" (as my grandfather, a native Georgian, used to fondly call him), is going to buttress WTF's case in our argument about Reagan. Originally Posted by Tiny

Maybe I'll come back later and see if I can buttress one of WTF's statements, but since you "voted" for gold, here's my take.

Of course, Nixon has been oft-criticized for closing the "gold window" in 1971 and effectively bringing about the end of the Bretton Woods gold-exchange standard, but I don't think the US really had any other choice by that time.

It's useful to go back many decades before that and consider that it had been a very long time since the US was actually on what is called the "classical gold standard," and that for many years the dollar had been in essence a de facto fiat currency, although one fixed to the other major world's currencies by agreement.

We weren't remotely in a position to allow banks abroad to redeem dollars for gold, since the dollar value of our gold reserves was a very tiny fraction of the value of US dollars here and overseas.

In earlier days in the US, currency consisted of gold or silver notes, supposedly redeemable for the metal whenever anyone turned one in. One had to jump through so many hoops to do so, though, that hardly anyone ever tried. Institutions and large businesses were discouraged from doing so, lest they get on Treasury's "enemies list" and have the IRS sicced on them, among other possible inconveniences.

For a very long time, gold was "worth" $20.67/oz, for no other reason than the US government said so. Then, during the Depression, FDR's executive order called in all privately held gold, save for stuff like jewelry. (Talk about an anti-libertarian measure!) That was a prelude to devaluing (which pretty much everyone else in the world was doing), and then for a long time thereafter the price of gold was $35/oz (again, because the US government said so.)

In sort of a forerunner of the Bretton Woods plan, the US, Britain, and France signed a currency accord in 1936 called the "Tripartite Agreement" (It's generally considered to have not been very successful.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripar...eement_of_1936

Fast forward to the 1960s. LBJ introduced the Great Society and at the same time escalated the very expensive Vietnam War. Inflation concerns arose in the latter part of the decade.

Then Nixon fanned the inflation flames further with his continuation of the war and his overtly Keynesian rhetoric in 1970-71. In his 1971 state of the union address, he called for Congress to pass an "expansionary budget." (They happily did.)

By this time, French and other European banks were getting agitated about US inflation and looming dollar weakness, and by August 1971 had for months exhibited a growing appetite for dollar redemption.

Had they been done on any but a tiny scale, such actions would have quickly depleted US gold reserves.

I doubt that US officials had previously been concerned that foreign institutions would ever be likely to try to redeem dollars for gold, for diplomatic and geopolitical reasons. The US provided the "defense umbrella" that protected Europe and Japan from the Soviets. One would think the last thing the Europeans would have wanted was the specter of US Army or Marines withdrawing from European soil, or the Sixth Fleet pulling out of the Mediterranean.

But those uppity French seemed willing to press their luck! And others followed.

So, contrary to popular belief, I think the US dollar was a de facto fiat currency long before the Bretton Woods gold-exchange standard came unglued, since Treasury was not remotely in a position to redeem all that many dollars for gold if called upon to do so. The whole thing depended on some measure of trust and various tacit understandings.

Things really started going off the rails after 1971, though, because big-government meddlers filled policy positions in ever greater numbers.

We saw what that can lead to in the 1970s, and are seeing it again during the post-financial crisis period.

.

One point to ponder here, though, might be this:

Asset inflation vs. consumer price inflation.

I've mentioned before that the term "trickle-down economics" might not be an apt way to describe what didn't actually happen during the Reagan years (but may have been intended by some talkers and writers back in the 1970s).

How about this?

"Trickle-Down Economics, Version 2.0. Now Much Bigger and Stronger Than the Original" Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Well, they hurt people who rely on interest income for retirement. And help those who invest in real estate, shares, businesses and the like, who tend to be wealthier than many Americans who are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Originally Posted by Tiny

For sure!

Most types of real estate have ripped like crazy during the pandemic era, mostly owing to unprecedentedly low interest rates. Investors were able to refinance apartment loans a little over a year ago in the 2.7%-2.8% range, fixed for 10 years. As a result DFW-area apartment complexes skyrocketed in value by quite a bit more than single-family homes, 30-40% in many cases.

A number of analysts over the years have tried to calculate what portion of current stock market capitalization is directly attributable to near-zero short-term rates and the lack of savers' opportunities to at least get something like a 2.5% or 3% yield from money market checking accounts and savings accounts. "TINA," and all that.

There was quite a bit of talk for a couple of weeks about the excellent Politico piece that Why Yes I Do posted above. For some time, Hoenig was the lone dissenter at the Fed. It was widely believed then, and still is now, that he was more concerned with asset bubbles creating chaos, risks, and vastly increased inequality than in consumer price inflation.

He was a lonely voice in the wilderness, though. Now our bubble-ridden economy has been so heavily medicated and stimulated for so long that there's no pain-free way out.

.

While not necessarily a fan of Politico, the below article caught my attention. Starts out as a love fest of the guy, but in my mind he seems to echo my fears of coming inflation and the havoc that may well ensue as a result. Especially considering some recent FED remarks along the lines of: dang, that inflation thing might actually exist and be a tough and sticky booger.

The Fed’s Doomsday Prophet Has a Dire Warning About Where We’re Headed Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

There was quite a bit of talk for a couple of weeks about the excellent Politico piece that Why Yes I Do posted above. For some time, Hoenig was the lone dissenter at the Fed. It was widely believed then, and still is now, that he was more concerned with asset bubbles creating chaos, risks, and vastly increased inequality than in consumer price inflation.

He was a lonely voice in the wilderness, though. Now our bubble-ridden economy has been so heavily medicated and stimulated for so long that there's no pain-free way out.

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I just read the Politico article, and it is indeed excellent.

Why_Yes_I_Do is like the guy in this Fedex commercial,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNCrMEOqHpc

Before nobody read his seminal article on the lab theory for origin of COVID until LustyLad brought it up. Now the same thing's happening with Hoenig.