What a weak dollar really does...

[Lukey]

Our resident leftist economics "expert" has recently spoken in favor of a weak currency policy that will "improve exports and the trade deficit and domestic manufacturing" Well, if your only goal is to subsidize organized labor (as, say, part of your plan to implement a "dictatorship of the proletariat") then yes, you might consider such a policy "attractive." But as Bastait has taught us, such singular focus on what is seen can lead us astray as we ignore what is NOT seen. Andy Laperriere recently did a bang up job of laying out the drawbacks in the WSJ:

During the past three years, the Federal Reserve has tripled the size of its balance sheet—in effect printing $2 trillion—something it had never done in its nearly 100-year history. The Fed has lowered short-term interest rates to zero and signaled that it will keep them at that level for years. Inflation-adjusted short-term rates, or real rates, have been in the minus 2% range during the past couple of years for the first time since the 1970s.

The unfortunate fact is, as Milton Friedman famously observed, there is no free lunch. After the Fed's loose monetary policy helped spur the boom-bust in housing, it's remarkable how little attention has been devoted to exploring the costs of Fed policy.

A few critics of quantitative easing (QE) and the zero interest rate (ZIRP) have correctly pointed out that these policies weaken the dollar and thereby reduce the purchasing power of American paychecks. They increase the risk of future inflation, obscure the true cost of the unsustainable fiscal policy the federal government is running, and transfer wealth from savers to debtors.

But QE and ZIRP also reduce long-term economic growth by punishing savers, reducing saving and investment over the long run. They encourage the misallocation of resources that at a minimum is preventing the natural rebalancing of our economy and could sow the seeds of another painful boom-bust.

One intended effect of a loose monetary policy is a weaker dollar, which can help gross domestic product by boosting exports. But a weaker dollar also raises import prices (such as oil prices) for American consumers. For the average American family, this adverse impact has likely outweighed any positive impact from QE and ZIRP.

The cost of a weaker dollar for most people is not offset by temporarily higher stock prices for two reasons. First, most Americans don't own much stock. Second, stock prices are not going to be higher 10 years from now because of the Fed's policies, so the effect is to bring forward equity returns, not increase long-term returns.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203753704577255641618477730.html?KEYWORDS=laperriere

 

[Lukey]

Chirp chirp, chirp chirp! I see our resident weak currency aficionados are staying away in droves. Here's a brilliant man's take:

[video]http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000077329[/video]

 

[degsme]

WOW - about as far off as it gets. Classic "mu" reasoning (as in persuming things as fact that just aren't so). BTW notice the Ad hominem intro that is classic example of conservative weak reasoing.

So the article starts off with the factual description of QE and ZIRP. So far so good. But then we have the sidelong swip of

remarkable how little attention has been devoted to exploring the costs of Fed policy.​

Well actually this has been discussed ad nauseum both before Congress in fairly technical testimony as well as across the various financial channels and papers. Basically the conclusion is that there will be an inflationary consequence to pay in the end, but that it
a) can be manged
b) is actually desirable since it accelerates the end of the housing slump by reinflating values to back "above water". So even if Purchasing Power doesn't return at the same rate, at least you are paying off with INFLATED dollars instead of DEFLATED dollars.

But then we get this piced of nonsesnse:

But QE and ZIRP also reduce long-term economic growth by punishing savers, reducing saving and investment over the long run.
.
​

This is the classic case of mixing in some truth (the I bit underlined) with a whole lot of horse crap (The bit I bolded). See SAVINGS being discussed here is CASH or CASH EQUIVILENT vehicles such as Bonds, CDs, MoneyMarkets and Savings accounts. ALL of these are instruments that get invested in short term cashflow based instruments. Thus they DO NOTHING TO GROW GDP over the Long term.

GDP growth over the long term is driven by demand - which savings is the opposite of - and CAPITAL INVESTMENT - which savings does not do.

OTOH - Equities investments - which essentially is the mechanism for CAPITAL INVESTMENT (and what I assume the author means by invoking "investment over the long run") is an INFLATION HEDGE. So actually a dollar policy that promises future infaltion and pays very little yields now, ENCOURAGES LONG TERM CAPITAL INVESTMENT, INCREASES DEMAND and reduces hording of cash.

IOW it increases the Velocity of Money . And Low Velocity Of Money is PRECISELY the problem in a recessionary "liquidity Trap".

So then we have this bit of nonsense:

But a weaker dollar also raises import prices (such as oil prices) for American consumers. For the average American family, this adverse impact has likely outweighed any positive impact from QE and ZIRP
.​

Again we have a mix of fact - yes a weaker dollar raises oil prices - and nonsense. Notice the Weasel word of "LIKELY" in the bolded secion. IOW, the author has no evidence either contemporary nor historical that there HAS BEEN such an "outweighing". Now note also what is being outweighed... "the impact of QE and ZIRP".. IOW we have ciruclar reasoning going on. QE and ZIRP are bad becaue they had no positive effect, and any positive effect they have is outweighed by the effects of ZIRP and QE...

This wouldn't get a passing grade in Logic 101. But for Von Mises Accolytes.. its gospel...

Rality is that the PRIMARY adverse effect of higher import costs is oil prices. But Oil prices are only about a 1% increase of the average household income (about $450/yr on a $54k income) in direct costs. And an additional 1% across the economy.

So its AT MOST a 2% adverse impact on income. But meanwhile DEMAND GOES UP, both from reduced savings incentives as well as increased exports and DECREASED IMPORTS for which domestically produced products are sustituted.

Sorry, this whole analysis by a Von Mises accolyte is nonsesne.

Then lastly we have this bit of bullshite

The cost of a weaker dollar for most people is not offset by temporarily higher stock prices for two reasons. First, most Americans don't own much stock. Second, stock prices are not going to be higher 10 years from now because of the Fed's policies, so the effect is to bring forward equity returns, not increase long-term returns.
.​

So it is true that the Feds Poliicies will not have much effect on stock prices in 10 years... Which itself is a meaningless digression since most investors have a 3-5yr investing horizon.
It is also true that this brings equity returns FORWARD . But that is precisely what encourages ADDITIONAL EQUITY INVESTMENT.. which we have already seen is CURRENTLY DESIRABLE

And it is True/false that most Americans don't own any stock. But first I have to point out that this is itself a canard. Whether or not Americans own stock is ONLY relevant if in fact my earlier point about equities being a hedge against inflation is accurate and the implied claim about "reduced long term investment " is false. So right here this guy contradicts himself.

But secondly the "True/False" nature is that it is TRUE that most Americans do not hold shares in corporations DIRECTLY. But it is FALSE that they are not invested in such. For example, CALPERS - which is one pension plan in one indiustry in ONE single state - has MORE INVESTED in the equity markets than the TOP 10 WEALTHIEST INDIVIDUALS IN THE NATION COMBINED.

And almost ALL of it is on behalf of MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS. Similarly most of my investments are in Market INdex Funds. Which means I don't actually directly own specific shares, but my 401k is almost 100% based on the value of those securities held in Tranched form.



So this is classic Von Mises nonsense. Sprinkel some fact in among outright incorrect analysis and hide it using weasel words and circular reasoning..



So the reason you heard Chirps of silence is that this sort of deconstruction I did takes about 1/2 hour to write up. But anyone with even the most basic Macro Econ understanding and famiiarity with the US economy can see it in about 30 seconds by simply applying Critical Reasoning.

So its just NOT WORTH RESPONDING to this sort of Bullshit. Its boring, tedious and obvious.

Try something new Lukey. Try reading an Econ text and TRYING to understand it.

 

[degsme]

Chirp chirp chirp...Crickets

 

[degsme]

Chirp chirp chirp...Crickets

Another day of ... chirp chirp chirp.. Crickets

 

[OldGaffer]

This deserves another bump to the top, Lukey?, Lukey?

 

[Lukey]

WOW - about as far off as it gets. Classic "mu" reasoning (as in persuming things as fact that just aren't so). BTW notice the Ad hominem intro that is classic example of conservative weak reasoing.

So the article starts off with the factual description of QE and ZIRP. So far so good. But then we have the sidelong swip of

remarkable how little attention has been devoted to exploring the costs of Fed policy.​

Well actually this has been discussed ad nauseum both before Congress in fairly technical testimony as well as across the various financial channels and papers. Basically the conclusion is that there will be an inflationary consequence to pay in the end, but that it
a) can be manged
b) is actually desirable since it accelerates the end of the housing slump by reinflating values to back "above water". So even if Purchasing Power doesn't return at the same rate, at least you are paying off with INFLATED dollars instead of DEFLATED dollars.

But then we get this piced of nonsesnse:

But QE and ZIRP also reduce long-term economic growth by punishing savers, reducing saving and investment over the long run.
.
​

This is the classic case of mixing in some truth (the I bit underlined) with a whole lot of horse crap (The bit I bolded). See SAVINGS being discussed here is CASH or CASH EQUIVILENT vehicles such as Bonds, CDs, MoneyMarkets and Savings accounts. ALL of these are instruments that get invested in short term cashflow based instruments. Thus they DO NOTHING TO GROW GDP over the Long term.

GDP growth over the long term is driven by demand - which savings is the opposite of - and CAPITAL INVESTMENT - which savings does not do.

OTOH - Equities investments - which essentially is the mechanism for CAPITAL INVESTMENT (and what I assume the author means by invoking "investment over the long run") is an INFLATION HEDGE. So actually a dollar policy that promises future infaltion and pays very little yields now, ENCOURAGES LONG TERM CAPITAL INVESTMENT, INCREASES DEMAND and reduces hording of cash.

IOW it increases the Velocity of Money . And Low Velocity Of Money is PRECISELY the problem in a recessionary "liquidity Trap".

So then we have this bit of nonsense:

But a weaker dollar also raises import prices (such as oil prices) for American consumers. For the average American family, this adverse impact has likely outweighed any positive impact from QE and ZIRP
.​

Again we have a mix of fact - yes a weaker dollar raises oil prices - and nonsense. Notice the Weasel word of "LIKELY" in the bolded secion. IOW, the author has no evidence either contemporary nor historical that there HAS BEEN such an "outweighing". Now note also what is being outweighed... "the impact of QE and ZIRP".. IOW we have ciruclar reasoning going on. QE and ZIRP are bad becaue they had no positive effect, and any positive effect they have is outweighed by the effects of ZIRP and QE...

This wouldn't get a passing grade in Logic 101. But for Von Mises Accolytes.. its gospel...

Rality is that the PRIMARY adverse effect of higher import costs is oil prices. But Oil prices are only about a 1% increase of the average household income (about $450/yr on a $54k income) in direct costs. And an additional 1% across the economy.

So its AT MOST a 2% adverse impact on income. But meanwhile DEMAND GOES UP, both from reduced savings incentives as well as increased exports and DECREASED IMPORTS for which domestically produced products are sustituted.

Sorry, this whole analysis by a Von Mises accolyte is nonsesne.

Then lastly we have this bit of bullshite

The cost of a weaker dollar for most people is not offset by temporarily higher stock prices for two reasons. First, most Americans don't own much stock. Second, stock prices are not going to be higher 10 years from now because of the Fed's policies, so the effect is to bring forward equity returns, not increase long-term returns.
.​

So it is true that the Feds Poliicies will not have much effect on stock prices in 10 years... Which itself is a meaningless digression since most investors have a 3-5yr investing horizon.
It is also true that this brings equity returns FORWARD . But that is precisely what encourages ADDITIONAL EQUITY INVESTMENT.. which we have already seen is CURRENTLY DESIRABLE

And it is True/false that most Americans don't own any stock. But first I have to point out that this is itself a canard. Whether or not Americans own stock is ONLY relevant if in fact my earlier point about equities being a hedge against inflation is accurate and the implied claim about "reduced long term investment " is false. So right here this guy contradicts himself.

But secondly the "True/False" nature is that it is TRUE that most Americans do not hold shares in corporations DIRECTLY. But it is FALSE that they are not invested in such. For example, CALPERS - which is one pension plan in one indiustry in ONE single state - has MORE INVESTED in the equity markets than the TOP 10 WEALTHIEST INDIVIDUALS IN THE NATION COMBINED.

And almost ALL of it is on behalf of MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS. Similarly most of my investments are in Market INdex Funds. Which means I don't actually directly own specific shares, but my 401k is almost 100% based on the value of those securities held in Tranched form.



So this is classic Von Mises nonsense. Sprinkel some fact in among outright incorrect analysis and hide it using weasel words and circular reasoning..



So the reason you heard Chirps of silence is that this sort of deconstruction I did takes about 1/2 hour to write up. But anyone with even the most basic Macro Econ understanding and famiiarity with the US economy can see it in about 30 seconds by simply applying Critical Reasoning.

So its just NOT WORTH RESPONDING to this sort of Bull$#@!. Its boring, tedious and obvious.

Try something new Lukey. Try reading an Econ text and TRYING to understand it.

I haven't bothered with this because you really haven't said anything here worth responding to. You put down a lot of words that basically say their arguments don't work because you say they don't work (or the Fed or the government says they aren't meaningful). If we are going to rely on the "official" government position as the "truth" in all cases, well, then, I have no reason to continue to participate in such a charade. It's frankly tiring to keep reasserting the same arguments when you don't address them. The idea that the inflation threat can be managed because the Fed says they can manage it is not a very satisfying argument. The Fed also said there was no housing bubble and that if there was, they could contain the damage from it - so taking their word for it that they can contain inflation when they are (again) claiming it doesn't exist despite the evidence of certain commodities skyrocketing is evidence enough that your reliance on this line of reasoning is suspect. And the idea that it is "desirable" as a "floor" under housing prices, well, how's that working out for us:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/01/has-housing-bottomed/

So, again, your argument rings hollow and seems to rely unreasonably on official government propaganda. And, even if that (eventually) works, who says it is right (or fair) that we decimate the savings of tens of millions of Americans in order to artificially inflate the housing prices of homeowners who bought at an imperfect price. Isn't that the sort of progressive social engineering that got us into this mess?

Then you revert to your standard "demand side" view of the economy that is merely a euphemism for Marxist (labor centric) policy arguments. It's like the multi-year below trend economic growth coinciding with this ZIRP doesn't even exist in Degsworld. So again, I am underwhelmed by the scope and depth of your argument here. You seem to be suggesting that ZIRP has increased demand despite clear evidence (see "cash for clunkers") that all it does is pull demand forward, not "create" additional - so again it remains to be shown that this "benefit" is worth the decimation of the savings of tens of millions of Americans (beyond the temporary "payoff" to Obama's base in the labor movement). Again, robbing American savers to provide ephemeral benefits to a certain, preferred class of Americans is not a valid purpose of federal policy.

And your misdirection on the "benefit" from pulling forward future equity gains is duly noted, with no evidence that would support it (like clear evidence of increased start up or growth based business activity). So, in conclusion, I agree with your final disclosure (that your argument is "boring, tedious and obvious"). Try reading something besides official government propaganda and maybe you will understand why.

 

[degsme]

I haven't bothered with this because you really haven't said anything here worth responding to.

Ah yes ad hominem off the bat.

You put down a lot of words that basically say their arguments don't work because you say they don't work

Not quite. I specifically point to where the arguements violate the laws of logic by inoking logical fallacis (Circular reasoning) or post hoc fallacy or invalid conclusion. If that's "not worth responding to" then either you don't understand valid logical reasoning - or you don't have an answer and would prefer to attack via ad hominm

(or the Fed or the government says they aren't meaningful).

Hmm where do I quote either The Fed or "the government" to support much of anything? Yes the Fed has said it will manage it in the future. It ALWAYS HAS IN THE PAST. Whehter this is skillfully done or not, unless you can show a long track record of failing to manage inflation (in which case why are we not at 1000% inflation??) - which you cannot, you are focussing on a small part of the discussion and pretending all the rest of it is similarly based.

It isn't.
It is obvious to all it isn't
and your claim here is just like that of the original author - where you mix in a bit of verifiable fact with a bunch of made up nonsense.

If we are going to rely on the "official" government position as the "truth" in all cases, well, then, I have no reason to continue to participate in such a charade.

And of course this is a false argument since that's not want was done here.

It's frankly tiring to keep reasserting the same arguments when you don't address them.

T
What VALID arguemnt was not addressed? There simply wre no ECONOMICALLY VALID or LOGICALLY VALID arguements presented. And I demonstrated that. you can keep repeating the same invalid arguements - but that doesn't make them any more valid.

And since you have NEVER SUPPORTED THEM with anything remotely approaching verifiable fact (how "most americans don't have equity investments" for example despite my citation of CALPERS as an example of how they do) nor valid logic (post hoc Fallacy is not valid logic) there is NOTHING TO ADRESS.

the idea that the inflation threat can be managed because the Fed says they can manage it is not a very satisfying argument.

T
Well you are leaving off that the "inflation threat" is actually BENEFICIAL here.... which is the key counter to the claims

the Fed also said there was no housing bubble and that if there was, they could contain the damage from it

And actually the housing bubble was far smaller than you claim it to be. The real problem was the Gresham's law contamination of the whole market and the resultant freezing of those markets.

Then you revert to your standard "demand side" view of the economy that is merely a euphemism for Marxist (labor centric) policy arguments

Right... Keynes was a Marxist
John Pierpont Morgan was a Marxist
Theodore Roosevelt was a Marxist

In fact anyone NOT a Von Mises or RandRoid accolyte is that dreaded word... "Marxist" it seems.

Sorry name calling doesn't disprove Keynes.


And the notion that somehow Supply/Demand laws are themselves "Marxist" is ludicrous.

It's like the multi-year below trend economic growth coinciding with this ZIRP doesn't even exist in Degsworld.

Because "Degsworld" is the same as the REAL WORLD. TWO DECAES of "below trend economic growth" BOTH Coincide with??? Tax cuts to the upper quintiles... The data on this is clear:

When Reagan cut upper quintile taxes first in 83 and then again in 86 - in BOTH CASES, GDP Growth FELL BELOW EXISTING TRENDs And when GWB did it in 2002, not only did GDP growth fall below existing trends - it fell below HISTORIC AVERAGES by a whopping 22%.

You seem to be suggesting that ZIRP has increased demand despite clear evidence (see "cash for clunkers") that all it does is pull demand forward, not "create" additional [ demand]

Um you don't seem to understand what Cash For Clunkers was. It WAS to "pull demand forward"... because that forward pull was necessary to very very very quickly prevent a freezeup in Accounts Receivable Lending. Had Cash For Clunkers not cleared inventory from dealer lots, local commercial banks would not have had the reserves required to lend Accts Rcvbl to small businesses. And since Small Biz is required by law to pay employees FIRST, that would have meant layoffs of about an additional 2%-5% unemployment.

So once again you demonstrate a superficial understanding of the economics and don't really see the big picture.

so again it remains to be shown that this "benefit" is worth the decimation of the savings of tens of millions of Americans

Decimation of savings isn't very bad. It means a 10% capital loss. Hardly catastrophic. I think the word you meant is "evisceration" (you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the word decimation as well here). But no such evisceration has taken place. Inflation is 2% or lower. So AT MOST folks have lost 1.5% year on year in inflation adjusted buying power. And what this has created as a DISINCENTIVE to save. That's not an evisceration of savings, its not even the mild decimation - what we see is simply a LACK of Savings...

And that's not a bad thing.

So no "robbing of American Savers" has occured. You are again... Making shit up.

And your misdirection on the "benefit" from pulling forward future equity gains is duly noted, with no evidence that would support it (like clear evidence of increased start up or growth based business activity).

Actually the problem there is that startups are typically funded against household equity. Equity investment in markets is primarily for more established businesses (Microsoft was in business for more than a decade before it went public). But that doesn't change that this increases assets available for earlier round financing. And I can tell you from direct experience in the business - more $$ area available at the Angel and VC levels today than 3, 2 or even 1 year ago. So again, THIS IS WORKING.

You simply don't know what you are talking about. BTW - here's a PWC study showing a 22% increase in Venture Capital Volume Year on Year from 2011 to 2010 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=venture investment annual volume 2000 2011&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=840&ei=AGVdT7i6CevMiQKL17i4Cw&usg=AFQjCNERZh1YDP7dLQTcXqizjA75DfvM9g
Now why you bothered to make a claim like

no evidence that would support it (like clear evidence of increased start up or growth based business activity

That is so easily shown to be nonsense - is an indicator that again... you DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKNG ABOUT.


C'mon... FACTS MATTER
GOT ANY?

Yeah I didn't think so... chirp chirp chirp/

 

[degsme]

OOps I made a mistake..
WE KNOW that Anderson Cooper is a Marxist http://www.chacha.com/question/is-anderson-cooper-from-cnn-a-communist-homosexual
and
WE KNOW that George Waterhouse is a Marxist/Communist http://21stcenturymanifesto.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/a-young-communist-outlook/

So therefore the Accounting Firm Price-Waterhouse-Cooper MUST BE MARXIST.

So my like to PWC's data that shows a 22% increase in Venture Capital Volume... MUST BE a Marxist smoke screen



Crickets??? Chirp chirp chirp

 

[Lukey]

Ah yes ad hominem off the bat.


Not quite. I specifically point to where the arguements violate the laws of logic by inoking logical fallacis (Circular reasoning) or post hoc fallacy or invalid conclusion. If that's "not worth responding to" then either you don't understand valid logical reasoning - or you don't have an answer and would prefer to attack via ad hominm


Hmm where do I quote either The Fed or "the government" to support much of anything? Yes the Fed has said it will manage it in the future. It ALWAYS HAS IN THE PAST. Whehter this is skillfully done or not, unless you can show a long track record of failing to manage inflation (in which case why are we not at 1000% inflation??) - which you cannot, you are focussing on a small part of the discussion and pretending all the rest of it is similarly based.

It isn't.
It is obvious to all it isn't
and your claim here is just like that of the original author - where you mix in a bit of verifiable fact with a bunch of made up nonsense.


And of course this is a false argument since that's not want was done here.


T
What VALID arguemnt was not addressed? There simply wre no ECONOMICALLY VALID or LOGICALLY VALID arguements presented. And I demonstrated that. you can keep repeating the same invalid arguements - but that doesn't make them any more valid.

And since you have NEVER SUPPORTED THEM with anything remotely approaching verifiable fact (how "most americans don't have equity investments" for example despite my citation of CALPERS as an example of how they do) nor valid logic (post hoc Fallacy is not valid logic) there is NOTHING TO ADRESS.

T
Well you are leaving off that the "inflation threat" is actually BENEFICIAL here.... which is the key counter to the claims


And actually the housing bubble was far smaller than you claim it to be. The real problem was the Gresham's law contamination of the whole market and the resultant freezing of those markets.




Right... Keynes was a Marxist
John Pierpont Morgan was a Marxist
Theodore Roosevelt was a Marxist

In fact anyone NOT a Von Mises or RandRoid accolyte is that dreaded word... "Marxist" it seems.

Sorry name calling doesn't disprove Keynes.


And the notion that somehow Supply/Demand laws are themselves "Marxist" is ludicrous.


Because "Degsworld" is the same as the REAL WORLD. TWO DECAES of "below trend economic growth" BOTH Coincide with??? Tax cuts to the upper quintiles... The data on this is clear:

When Reagan cut upper quintile taxes first in 83 and then again in 86 - in BOTH CASES, GDP Growth FELL BELOW EXISTING TRENDs And when GWB did it in 2002, not only did GDP growth fall below existing trends - it fell below HISTORIC AVERAGES by a whopping 22%.


Um you don't seem to understand what Cash For Clunkers was. It WAS to "pull demand forward"... because that forward pull was necessary to very very very quickly prevent a freezeup in Accounts Receivable Lending. Had Cash For Clunkers not cleared inventory from dealer lots, local commercial banks would not have had the reserves required to lend Accts Rcvbl to small businesses. And since Small Biz is required by law to pay employees FIRST, that would have meant layoffs of about an additional 2%-5% unemployment.

So once again you demonstrate a superficial understanding of the economics and don't really see the big picture.


Decimation of savings isn't very bad. It means a 10% capital loss. Hardly catastrophic. I think the word you meant is "evisceration" (you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the word decimation as well here). But no such evisceration has taken place. Inflation is 2% or lower. So AT MOST folks have lost 1.5% year on year in inflation adjusted buying power. And what this has created as a DISINCENTIVE to save. That's not an evisceration of savings, its not even the mild decimation - what we see is simply a LACK of Savings...

And that's not a bad thing.

So no "robbing of American Savers" has occured. You are again... Making $#@! up.


Actually the problem there is that startups are typically funded against household equity. Equity investment in markets is primarily for more established businesses (Microsoft was in business for more than a decade before it went public). But that doesn't change that this increases assets available for earlier round financing. And I can tell you from direct experience in the business - more $$ area available at the Angel and VC levels today than 3, 2 or even 1 year ago. So again, THIS IS WORKING.

You simply don't know what you are talking about. BTW - here's a PWC study showing a 22% increase in Venture Capital Volume Year on Year from 2011 to 2010 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=venture investment annual volume 2000 2011&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=840&ei=AGVdT7i6CevMiQKL17i4Cw&usg=AFQjCNERZh1YDP7dLQTcXqizjA75DfvM9g
Now why you bothered to make a claim like

That is so easily shown to be nonsense - is an indicator that again... you DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKNG ABOUT.


C'mon... FACTS MATTER
GOT ANY?

Yeah I didn't think so... chirp chirp chirp/

dec·i·mate
   [des-uh-meyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -mat·ed, -mat·ing.
1. to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.
2. to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.
3. Obsolete . to take a tenth of or from.

 

[degsme]

dec·i·mate
   [des-uh-meyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -mat·ed, -mat·ing.
1. to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.
2. to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.
3. Obsolete . to take a tenth of or from.

Notice it means "to kill every tenth person of"... yes 10% is "a great number" or "proportion of"... but it isn't crippling. The etymology of the word is that this is what the Romans would do to a Legion that broke ranks in battle. They would require each Phalanx to subdivide into groups of 10 and to pick which of their comrades would be killed. They then would have to kill their own friend.

Your ignorance of this etymology and the subsequent misuse of the term is no different than your failure to address the ECONOMICS involved here.

 

[degsme]

Where's your evidence that shows Price-Waterhouse-Coopers to be a Marxist accounting firm BTW?

Chirp chirp chirp?

 

[degsme]

Where's your evidence that shows Price-Waterhouse-Coopers to be a Marxist accounting firm BTW?

Chirp chirp chirp?

Still waiting for evidence that PWC is a Marxist acccounting firm


Chirp chirp chirp of crickets.

 

[Lukey]

Notice it means "to kill every tenth person of"... yes 10% is "a great number" or "proportion of"... but it isn't crippling. The etymology of the word is that this is what the Romans would do to a Legion that broke ranks in battle. They would require each Phalanx to subdivide into groups of 10 and to pick which of their comrades would be killed. They then would have to kill their own friend.

Your ignorance of this etymology and the subsequent misuse of the term is no different than your failure to address the ECONOMICS involved here.

And as I have already pointed out I was going with the first definition: to destroy a great number or proportion of. You know, the MUCH MORE WIDELY deployed use of the word. But I must say it is instructive that you are grasping on to a more esoteric meaning and trying to use that to suggest that the case I made cannot possibly stand in the face of this mighty semantic onslaught of the great and all knowing Degsme. As if this were somehow proof positive that I do not know what I am talking about. This sort of rhetorical sleight of hand is the pièce de résistance of the Degsme modus operandi. Please do not persist in this avenue of attack. I clearly have a record as having one of the most extensive vocabularies on here. You really are making yourself look foolish here.

Now, on to the matter at hand - is this a factual observation or isn't it?

The fact is that priced in specie — gold or silver — the value of gasoline has been plunging. We made this point in April last year, after Mr. Obama used his weekly radio address to declare that to rectify rising gasoline prices there was, as he put it, “no silver bullet.” Our point was that a gallon of gasoline was selling at the time for fewer grains of silver than it was selling for when Mr. Obama (or, for that matter, Mr. Bush) had acceded to the presidency. Gasoline at the pump was selling for a sixth of an ounce of silver when Mr. Obama was sworn in. Today, the value of the same gallon of gasoline has fallen to less than a 10th of an ounce of silver. Measured in gold, the value of gasoline has also been plunging.

In other words, it’s not the gasoline that’s been going up. It’s the dollar that’s been going down.

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/obama-in-your-tank/87740/

So, if we strip away all the noise in the data (which is where you choose to do your dirty business of obfuscation and spin) we get to the essential elements. And again, while it is not the ONLY determinant of gasoline/oil prices (for instance, the Arab Oil Embargo in the 70's, the stagflation/high interest rates of the early 80's and the lasting effects on demand of the conservation efforts that came out of the 70's and early 80's all temporarily distorted this relationship), the value of the dollar (as measured in gold and/or silver) plays a huge role in the long term direction of all commodity prices, and has been a key component since the year 2000 in the direction of the price of oil. For decades before we started down the weak dollar (dare I say) "decimation" route, the price of a gallon of gas was roughly 25 to 30 cents a gallon and the US going off the gold standard was a trigger for the Arab Oil Embargo that was designed to increase the price of oil to compensate for the lower value of the dollar. And, in fact, the evidence that gasoline/oil has DECLINED in value since 2000 (when priced in gold and/or silver) essentially refutes your contention that the other determinants (supply/demand, threat of war in the ME, etc.) are indeed what is driving the price (at least not UP).

 

[degsme]

And as I have already pointed out I was going with the first definition: to destroy a great number or proportion of.

That's only come out of its being abused out of etymological ignorance. Sorry you are demonstrating your language skills by writing this badly.

The fact is that priced in specie — gold or silver — the value of gasoline has been plunging.

Irrelevant. the VALUE of gasoline, or anything for that matter - is its utility, not its relationship to an arbitrary specie. Particularly when the market for that specie is driven by irrational "metal buggery".

In other words, it’s not the gasoline that’s been going up. It’s the dollar that’s been going down.

Nope. Because this presumes at its core that gold buggery and silver buggery have no distortive effects on the market of those two metals. And we know that not to be the case. How? Well we look to other "species" that could be used as currency - say Platinum or Palladium http://www.speculative-investor.com/new/article150402.html And we look to see if these specie similarly react - because afterall, if this difference had to do with the VALUE of a limited specie, then ALL specie would react simiarly and yet they don't http://goldinfo.net/metals-platinum-palladium.aspx.

So what this tells us is that there is another factor driving Gold and Silver other than being a "stable value repository". We know from research that gold and silver in particular are highly irrationally priced http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1058330006000218 significantly driven by emotional factors.

So any premise that there is a tie between gold prices and the "real value" in the market of any other commodity, simply is not acurat,

THUS the conclusions by this editorial writer in a minor neo-conservative publication put out by Conrad Black is not even worth the cost of the electrons used to render it here.


NOTICE how Lukey

• is not citing published - peer reviewed research
• Cites an echo chamber source (the Sun)
• Makes assumptions about the validity of the analysis without actually looking at the data

Sorry, ANY analysis that starts withsuch flawed presumptions is worth about as much as Ron Paul's "insights" into fiscal policy: Good for suckers that can't think on their own.





BTW I'm still waiting for you to show how Price Waterhouse and Coopers is a "Marxist accounting firm".

Chirp chirp

 

[Sgt Staples]

So any premise that there is a tie between gold prices and the "real value" in the market of any other commodity, simply is not acurat,

I am continually amazed at the fact that liberals have to use so many words to prove the the illogical logical and fiction is fact.

in·fla·tion
 
noun
1.
Economics . a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency.

Gold, Oil, Food, Energy and goods and services are all going up in price due to the feds monetary policy and the heavy dumping of additional currency in the markets and economy. Wait until it really hits.

 

[justoffal]

I heard a very disturbing report the other day indicating that what we are really experiencing at this point is a predetermined decision by our current Western Banking Cartel to destroy the Chinese economy using the latent value of the American Pocketbook to do so....

China is even more dependent on oil imports than we are...ergo it has been decided to stab them in the heart by keeping oil prices high
Allowing the Dollar to depreciate puts back pressure on the manufacturing economy in China forcing them to lay off workers, over stock warehouses and change financial forecasts.

The prevailing opinion here is that it will cause China to collapse " Soviet Union Style " within five years.

I am afraid the one thing they may have underestimated is whether or not they may take an aggressive tack on this whole thing and start a real war....which is also desirable from the standpoint of the Western Cartel because articles of War would allow the US to legally expunge the books and declare all debts non-payable to the aggressor.

 

[justoffal]

Too many words...most of them bullshixt....and plenty of wild ideas here.

So....if you think that the current devaluation of the dollar is not a punishment to those who save....please explain the profits being made in precious metals. This one I just have to see and hear because it's going to have to be a douzy for you to back out of that statement.

 

[justoffal]

Good god man you noticed that too?

The sky isn't just blue..... it's the refractory values of the electromagnetic spectrum release visible light in the sub violet to infra red frequencies in our stratosphere!

 

[Lukey]

That's only come out of its being abused out of etymological ignorance. Sorry you are demonstrating your language skills by writing this badly.
Irrelevant. the VALUE of gasoline, or anything for that matter - is its utility, not its relationship to an arbitrary specie. Particularly when the market for that specie is driven by irrational "metal buggery".


Nope. Because this presumes at its core that gold buggery and silver buggery have no distortive effects on the market of those two metals. And we know that not to be the case. How? Well we look to other "species" that could be used as currency - say Platinum or Palladium http://www.speculative-investor.com/new/article150402.html And we look to see if these specie similarly react - because afterall, if this difference had to do with the VALUE of a limited specie, then ALL specie would react simiarly and yet they don't http://goldinfo.net/metals-platinum-palladium.aspx.

So what this tells us is that there is another factor driving Gold and Silver other than being a "stable value repository". We know from research that gold and silver in particular are highly irrationally priced http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1058330006000218 significantly driven by emotional factors.

So any premise that there is a tie between gold prices and the "real value" in the market of any other commodity, simply is not acurat,

THUS the conclusions by this editorial writer in a minor neo-conservative publication put out by Conrad Black is not even worth the cost of the electrons used to render it here.


NOTICE how Lukey

• is not citing published - peer reviewed research
• Cites an echo chamber source (the Sun)
• Makes assumptions about the validity of the analysis without actually looking at the data

Sorry, ANY analysis that starts withsuch flawed presumptions is worth about as much as Ron Paul's "insights" into fiscal policy: Good for suckers that can't think on their own.





BTW I'm still waiting for you to show how Price Waterhouse and Coopers is a "Marxist accounting firm".

Chirp chirp

Yeah, you're right...what was I thinking:

https://www.google.com/search?q=decimating+the+value+of+a+currency&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

"Only" 170 million hits. I obviously chose an unacceptable use of that terminology...