US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Bernanke led economy proving critics clueless

This is a discussion on Bernanke led economy proving critics clueless within the Economy forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by itfitzme Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images. It looks like ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Economy

Economy Discuss economic policy and wallstreet

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241 (permalink)  
Old 02-22-2012, 07:40 AM
Registered User
Member #34276
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 585
Thanks: 1
Thanked 60 Times in 56 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 10
samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB
It looks like world production picked back up with the onset of the recession but US production just got tapped out a decade ago.
YABBUT!! Yeah, but you don't know that. You can't tell that by looking at that chart. The chart doesn't prove that and it can't disprove that. For whatever reason gold production didn't pick up in the US in '08. My guess would be that it takes dollars to make gold and that kind of finance has been hard to come by recently. The '10 and '11 numbers will probably look better.

I'm not saying that I can prove you wrong - I'm only saying that it's jumping to a conclusion to assume that America is running out of gold.
Reply With Quote
  #242 (permalink)  
Old 02-22-2012, 07:52 AM
Registered User
Member #34276
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 585
Thanks: 1
Thanked 60 Times in 56 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 10
samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB
You said there is robust gold production. Gold production falling over a decade while prices quintuple is not "robust."
Yes, it is. I don't dispute your facts. I dispute your analysis, because you're only choosing to look at the facts that support your presumption.

From 1979 through 2007 gold remained at a relatively consistent price with alot of volatilty within the $300 - $600 range. It was a snake in a box. In 2006 and 2007 the price started increasing substantially, but only hindsight is the proof of that. It would not have been quite so clear in 2007 that gold was going to continue to go through the roof. Gold tripled between 2008 and 2011.... no disputing that, but the "quintuple" figure largely happens because of your creative selection of dates.

I could easily say that gold prices were unchanged from 1980 to 2006, but that hardly describes what happened to gold in that period.

Gold production - as the USGS data shows - changed very little, increasing slightly every year to 2000 and then decreasing slightly to 2006.... when the apocalypse hit, the gold mining industry started increasing production to realize these unanticipated profits.

The gold mining industry may take some time to respond to market price fluctuations, but not 150 years and not the "7 - 10 years it takes to get a mine up and running". They just increase production in existing mines and step up the search for new sources. It's an industry - it's not some old prospector walking around with a pick axe.

At $1500+ per ounce(t) you can believe that you'll be seeing alot of fresh gold hit the market.
Reply With Quote
  #243 (permalink)  
Old 02-22-2012, 02:58 PM
itfitzme's Avatar
Registered User
Member #35236
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 4,453
Thanks: 241
Thanked 680 Times in 598 Posts
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 192
itfitzme has disabled reputation
More views

It looks like world production picked back up with the onset of the recession but US production just got tapped out a decade ago.
YABBUT!! Yeah, but you don't know that. You can't tell that by looking at that chart. The chart doesn't prove that and it can't disprove that. For whatever reason gold production didn't pick up in the US in '08. My guess would be that it takes dollars to make gold and that kind of finance has been hard to come by recently. The '10 and '11 numbers will probably look better.

I'm not saying that I can prove you wrong - I'm only saying that it's jumping to a conclusion to assume that America is running out of gold.
Absolutely. That's why I said, "It looks like" instead of "proves" or "Is" or whatever. It can "look like" lots of things. I could have said "guess" but I'm not willing to even go that far.

As you suggest, it also can be interpreted as production taking a while to get started up. It must take at least a year, even if everything goes perfectly. Excellent point.

The secondary production is, apparently, recycled gold. It started back up in 2006.

The world production started back up in 2008.

It's kinda unfortunate that this data only goes to '09. But it isn't approprate to mix data sets. If you read the pdf, the author points out some issues in having combined data from different sources. But, it gives some idea of things.

So 1971, 2001, 2005-06 and 2008 were years when something changed. 1971 is obvious. For all we know, in 2006 someone got clever and started a business in recycled gold.

Here are a few more, Cumulative World Quantity, Price Vs World Output, and Price Vs Cumulative World Quantity. Of course, all the data points are equilibrium points.

Cumulative World Output
Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
http://i776.photobucket.com/albums/y...orldOutput.gif

Price vs World Output
Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
http://i776.photobucket.com/albums/y...orldOutput.gif

Price vs total world
Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
http://i776.photobucket.com/albums/y...WorldTotal.gif

The price quantity data points are equilibrium points.

So here is the price vs qty with "pretend" s and d curves. Who knows what the slope is for them. Elasticity is seldom zero or infinite, so we can make an educated guess as to what has been going on.

Price vs production with made up S-D curves
Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.

It would be serendipitous if the slopes matched the data and we are looking at periods where demand and supply shifted in isolation. It could happen.

If the elasticity for supply and demand hasn't changed, then it seems to indicate that supply and demand has shifted. That's the whole ***** about econ, macro and micro, is we don't have the data that nails down the underlying relationship, only the equilibrium point.

Data itself seldom proves anything. It is just a starting point to narrow down what to look at.
Reply With Quote
  #244 (permalink)  
Old 02-22-2012, 03:58 PM
Paulie's Avatar
Dont be my next situation
Member #5302
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22,379
Thanks: 2
Thanked 3,987 Times in 2,806 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1928
Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute
Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute Paulie has a reputation beyond repute
You people who are advocating a GOLD STANDARD don't really know what you're talking about.

The Gold standard has not historically prevented central banksters from printing up more money.

I know you think it ought to but it never happens in reality.

Mankind's civilizations have had economic depressions in every economic system we have ever created.

We had them when we were on a Gold standard and had no central bank, and we've had them when we were on the gold standard and had a central bank, and we've had them when we were not on the gold standard and ONLY had a central bank.

Your theories are interesting (they even have a kind of simpli9tic logic behind them, too), but they are not supported by reality.
Optimally I'd just like for competing currencies to be legal. The government can keep their FRN's as "legal tender for all debts public and private" and any other currencies that come to market can be legal for private debts.

Let's let the market decide what currency works best.
__________________
Any ****ing time....Any ****ing day....learn to swim...see you down in Arizona Bay
Reply With Quote
  #245 (permalink)  
Old 02-22-2012, 10:15 PM
itfitzme's Avatar
Registered User
Member #35236
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 4,453
Thanks: 241
Thanked 680 Times in 598 Posts
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 192
itfitzme has disabled reputation
More recent gold production data is at

USGS Minerals Information: Gold

including

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pu...-2011-gold.pdf and http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pu...-2012-gold.pdf

These interesting.

The USGS reports 2010 production up 3.6% from 2009. 2011 was up 2.6% from 2010.

Still, there has been a net import of gold and those 3% per year increases are hardly a blip on the graph compared to the decline since 2000. If it is any indicator of the rate at which domestic production can increase, then it will be another decade before domestic production reaches 2000 level.

2011 report -

"Domestic gold mine production in 2010 was estimated to be 3% more than the level of 2009. This marks the first increase in domestic production since 2000. Increased production from new mines in Alaska and Nevada, and from existing mines in Nevada, accounted for much of the increase. These increases were partially offset by decreases in production from mines in Montana and Utah. Because of the large increase in imports of gold products, the United States was not a net exporter of gold in 2010. The increases were mostly from imported ore and concentrates from Mexico, which were processed and refined in the United States."

2012 report -

"Domestic gold mine production in 2011 was estimated to be 3% more than the level of 2010. This marks the second consecutive increase in annual domestic production. Increased production from restarted mines in Montana and Nevada and from existing mines in Nevada accounted for much of the increase. These increases were partially offset by decreases in production from mines in Nevada and Utah. Because of the substantial amount of imports of gold products, the United States was not a net exporter of gold in 2010 and 2011. Much of the recent surge in imports is ores and concentrates from Mexico shipped into the United States for processing."
Reply With Quote
  #246 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2012, 08:57 AM
Registered User
Member #34276
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 585
Thanks: 1
Thanked 60 Times in 56 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 10
samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB samjones spends too much time on USMB
Optimally I'd just like for competing currencies to be legal. The government can keep their FRN's as "legal tender for all debts public and private" and any other currencies that come to market can be legal for private debts.

Let's let the market decide what currency works best.
This is a perfect example of how out-of-touch Ron Paul Whackjobs are with reality.

Here's my question. If 2 parties agree that a debt is to be paid in Yen then who really would care? Certainly this happens frequently.
Reply With Quote
  #247 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2012, 05:44 PM
KissMy's Avatar
Free Breast Exam
Member #21241
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: In your head
Posts: 9,621
Thanks: 1,671
Thanked 2,557 Times in 1,806 Posts
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4559
KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute
KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute
Wall Street Journal: Why we can not believe the Fed

A review of the Federal Reserve from 1986 to 2006 discovered that they missed with their forecast 100% of the time. Most of the time the Fed missed the forecast by 50% or more. And 50% of the time the Fed missed with their forecast by 100% or more.

Last edited by KissMy; 02-23-2012 at 08:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #248 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2012, 05:49 PM
Registered User
Member #34008
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,145
Thanks: 1
Thanked 972 Times in 820 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 465
EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness EdwardBaiamonte may be on a path to greatness
Wall Street Journal: Why can not we believe the Fed

A review of the Federal Reserve from 1986 to 2006 discovered that they missed with their forecast 100% of the time. Most of the time the Fed missed the forecast by 50% or more. And 50% of the time the Fed missed with their forecast by 100%.
yes and thats not to mention that they missed the housing bubble until well after it had exploded right in their face. And, they missed the Great Depression for years without even knowing that had caused it.

Last edited by EdwardBaiamonte; 02-23-2012 at 05:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #249 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2012, 07:13 PM
Toro's Avatar
Member of the Illuminati
Member #2926
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Big Bend via Riderville
Posts: 32,733
Thanks: 1,614
Thanked 11,238 Times in 7,190 Posts
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2665
Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute
Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute Toro has a reputation beyond repute
Wall Street Journal: Why can not we believe the Fed

A review of the Federal Reserve from 1986 to 2006 discovered that they missed with their forecast 100% of the time. Most of the time the Fed missed the forecast by 50% or more. And 50% of the time the Fed missed with their forecast by 100%.
Economists are awful forecasters.
__________________


“When you’re standing still, you’re really easy to cover.” - New Washington Capitals coach, Barry Trotz, to Alex Ovechkin.
Reply With Quote
  #250 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2012, 08:40 PM
itfitzme's Avatar
Registered User
Member #35236
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 4,453
Thanks: 241
Thanked 680 Times in 598 Posts
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 192
itfitzme has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by EdwardBaiamonte Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
Wall Street Journal: Why can not we believe the Fed

A review of the Federal Reserve from 1986 to 2006 discovered that they missed with their forecast 100% of the time. Most of the time the Fed missed the forecast by 50% or more. And 50% of the time the Fed missed with their forecast by 100%.
yes and thats not to mention that they missed the housing bubble until well after it had exploded right in their face. And, they missed the Great Depression for years without even knowing that had caused it.
You mean you missed the housing bubble and lost your pants. Now you want to blame the Federal Reserve for the fact that the Bush 2005 change to bankruptcy law didn't stop the wave of property investors from walking away from third and fourth mortgages.
Reply With Quote
  #251 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2012, 09:40 PM
Registered User
Member #34587
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,062
Thanks: 5
Thanked 111 Times in 103 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 18
DSGE could own USMB DSGE could own USMB DSGE could own USMB DSGE could own USMB DSGE could own USMB DSGE could own USMB
Wall Street Journal: Why can not we believe the Fed

A review of the Federal Reserve from 1986 to 2006 discovered that they missed with their forecast 100% of the time. Most of the time the Fed missed the forecast by 50% or more. And 50% of the time the Fed missed with their forecast by 100%.
Economists are awful forecasters.
Yes. Any economist will tell you that economists are awful forecasters.
Reply With Quote
  #252 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2012, 08:19 AM
Banned
Member #17281
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Posts: 41,428
Thanks: 7,010
Thanked 18,755 Times in 10,366 Posts
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 5 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow Oddball is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Such bad forecasters that many of them, somehow or another, believe in central economic planning.
Reply With Quote
  #253 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2012, 09:10 AM
Registered User
Member #34587
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,062
Thanks: 5
Thanked 111 Times in 103 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 18
DSGE could own USMB DSGE could own USMB DSGE could own USMB DSGE could own USMB DSGE could own USMB DSGE could own USMB
Such bad forecasters that many of them, somehow or another, believe in central economic planning.
Like who?
Reply With Quote
  #254 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2012, 10:07 AM
itfitzme's Avatar
Registered User
Member #35236
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 4,453
Thanks: 241
Thanked 680 Times in 598 Posts
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 192
itfitzme has disabled reputation
Wall Street Journal: Why can not we believe the Fed

A review of the Federal Reserve from 1986 to 2006 discovered that they missed with their forecast 100% of the time. Most of the time the Fed missed the forecast by 50% or more. And 50% of the time the Fed missed with their forecast by 100%.
Economists are awful forecasters.
Unlike those stock fund managers and roulette wheel players who will tell you that they hit their mark all the time. (Except when they don't in which case they can't be found)

The article isn't a free read. And the provided quote is out of any context. So it is meaningless. What forecast. The forecast of what? How is it measured? By 50% of what?

The weatherman is off in his temperature forecast 100% of the time.

If the target is 1 and you hit 2, you are off by 100%. If the target is 10 and you hit 11, you are off by 10%. If the target is 1 and you hit 2, one hundred times, you are off by 100%, 100% of the time.

That is the thing about making vague and general statements, they are never wrong because they never say anything.

Here is the monthly CPI with the target and the average.

Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.

The pink line very close to zero is the target. The straight black line is the actual performance of the CPI.

The target of the CPI was 3% a year or .25% a month. It is now 2% a year or .18% a month. The CPI standard deviation is +/-0.42%. Three standard deviations is 1.26%. So 95% of the time, the CPI swings randomly by 523%.

So the Fed forecasts a CPI near .25% a month. The average is right on the forecast and the month to month random swing is all over the place.
Reply With Quote
  #255 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2012, 10:45 AM
KissMy's Avatar
Free Breast Exam
Member #21241
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: In your head
Posts: 9,621
Thanks: 1,671
Thanked 2,557 Times in 1,806 Posts
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4559
KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute
KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute KissMy has a reputation beyond repute
Free Read of the WSJ article: Why we can not believe the Fed
Quote:
The Fed studied its own staff's forecasting performance over the period 1986 to 2006. It found that the average root mean squared error—or the deviation from the actual result—for the staff's next-year gross domestic product (GDP) forecasts was 1.34, compared with 1.29 by what the Fed describes as a "large group" of private forecasters. That is, the Fed's predicting performance was worse than that of market-watchers outside the Fed. For next-year CPI forecasts, the error term was 1.03 for Fed staff, and only 0.93 for private forecasters. The Fed's conclusion? In its own words, its "historical forecast errors are large in economic terms."
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Economy
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:24 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.