Are central banks (BOJ, EU and USA) setting up the biggest crash ever?

[georgephillip]

IMHO, The Fed needs to stop ***** footing around and raise rates. 1/8 or 1/4 a point per quarter would not be the end of the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How did that work out the last time it was tried?

You tell me, how did it work out?

As I recall the last rate hike produced an economic downturn:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — One economist says today’s unemployment report makes it much less likely that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates between now and the presidential election in November.

"The government says employers added 160,000 jobs in April, the lowest number in seven months.

"Chris Williamson of Markit says the numbers add to the indications that economic weakness is lingering into the second quarter of the year.

"Fed policy makers had earlier indicated that they could raise rates twice this year."

http://wtop.com/government/2016/05/jobs-report-might-delay-further-fed-rate-hikes/

 

[william the wie]

IMHO, The Fed needs to stop ***** footing around and raise rates. 1/8 or 1/4 a point per quarter would not be the end of the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How did that work out the last time it was tried?

You tell me, how did it work out?

Thank you for rephrasing my argument above. You are a good editor.

 

[Zander]

IMHO, The Fed needs to stop ***** footing around and raise rates. 1/8 or 1/4 a point per quarter would not be the end of the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How did that work out the last time it was tried?

You tell me, how did it work out?

As I recall the last rate hike produced an economic downturn:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — One economist says today’s unemployment report makes it much less likely that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates between now and the presidential election in November.

"The government says employers added 160,000 jobs in April, the lowest number in seven months.

"Chris Williamson of Markit says the numbers add to the indications that economic weakness is lingering into the second quarter of the year.

"Fed policy makers had earlier indicated that they could raise rates twice this year."

http://wtop.com/government/2016/05/jobs-report-might-delay-further-fed-rate-hikes/

So what? It has to be done.

There is no free lunch. You can't avoid the inevitable downturn after so many years of artificially low rates. I say- Get on with it and put it behind us.

 

[william the wie]

IMHO, The Fed needs to stop ***** footing around and raise rates. 1/8 or 1/4 a point per quarter would not be the end of the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How did that work out the last time it was tried?

You tell me, how did it work out?

As I recall the last rate hike produced an economic downturn:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — One economist says today’s unemployment report makes it much less likely that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates between now and the presidential election in November.

"The government says employers added 160,000 jobs in April, the lowest number in seven months.

"Chris Williamson of Markit says the numbers add to the indications that economic weakness is lingering into the second quarter of the year.

"Fed policy makers had earlier indicated that they could raise rates twice this year."

http://wtop.com/government/2016/05/jobs-report-might-delay-further-fed-rate-hikes/

So what? It has to be done.

There is no free lunch. You can't avoid the inevitable downturn after so many years of artificially low rates. I say- Get on with it and put it behind us.

My worry is the last four times limited socialism failed in this country we saw a double down on Dumb.

 

[Toro]

I cringe when I hear academics talk about helicopter money. It would probably mean the end of the monetary system as we know it. Germany would leave the eurozone and the Federal Reserve would, at the very least, have its powers curtailed, if not reconfigured.

Nonsense. When controlling interest rates/QE fails, and growth is slow worldwide, what is left? Fiscal policy? I agree, but good luck getting these countries gripped by fear of government bonds to do that.

You fail to realize the backlash that would come with such policies. The German finance minister has already criticized Draghi, claiming he is partly responsible for the rise of the extreme right party in Germany.

The academics who run central banks do not operate in a political vacuum.

 

[georgephillip]

IMHO, The Fed needs to stop ***** footing around and raise rates. 1/8 or 1/4 a point per quarter would not be the end of the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How did that work out the last time it was tried?

You tell me, how did it work out?

As I recall the last rate hike produced an economic downturn:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — One economist says today’s unemployment report makes it much less likely that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates between now and the presidential election in November.

"The government says employers added 160,000 jobs in April, the lowest number in seven months.

"Chris Williamson of Markit says the numbers add to the indications that economic weakness is lingering into the second quarter of the year.

"Fed policy makers had earlier indicated that they could raise rates twice this year."

http://wtop.com/government/2016/05/jobs-report-might-delay-further-fed-rate-hikes/

So what? It has to be done.

There is no free lunch. You can't avoid the inevitable downturn after so many years of artificially low rates. I say- Get on with it and put it behind us.

The biggest fear I have is that the US economy has reached a point where it is completely saturated with debt.

This has been happening for the last five thousand years.

The magic of compound interest increases debt faster than any productive economy can pay it off, and the US is just the latest example.

The best metaphor I've found involves a lily pad...
http://store.counterpunch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Killing-The-Host_PDF_V7.pdf ( p. 42)
"Evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson demonstrates how impossible it is for growth to proceed at exponential rates without encountering a limit.

"He cites 'the arithmetical riddle of the lily pond.

"A lily pod is placed in a pond.

"Each day thereafter the pod and then all its descendants double.

"On the thirtieth day the pond is covered completely by lily pods, which can grow no more.'

"He then asks: 'On which day was the pond half full and half empty? The twenty-ninth day,” that is, one day before the half the pond’s lilies double for the final time, stifling its surface.

"The end to exponential growth thus comes quickly."

I think the US economy is on its 29th day...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You don't understand Helicopter Money, Toro. You are a bull in a China shop on this issue. You do understand that the proper manifestation of helicopter money is entirely debt free in its application. It is not a fiscal policy, but rather a monetary policy with positive fiscal results. http://www.talkmarkets.com/content/economics--politics-education/responsibly-expand-the-monetary-base-before-it-is-too-late?post=93323&uid=4798

Yes. And wolverines make great house pets

 

[william the wie]

I cringe when I hear academics talk about helicopter money. It would probably mean the end of the monetary system as we know it. Germany would leave the eurozone and the Federal Reserve would, at the very least, have its powers curtailed, if not reconfigured.

Nonsense. When controlling interest rates/QE fails, and growth is slow worldwide, what is left? Fiscal policy? I agree, but good luck getting these countries gripped by fear of government bonds to do that.

You fail to realize the backlash that would come with such policies. The German finance minister has already criticized Draghi, claiming he is partly responsible for the rise of the extreme right party in Germany.

The academics who run central banks do not operate in a political vacuum.

I cringe when I hear academics talk about helicopter money. It would probably mean the end of the monetary system as we know it. Germany would leave the eurozone and the Federal Reserve would, at the very least, have its powers curtailed, if not reconfigured.

Nonsense. When controlling interest rates/QE fails, and growth is slow worldwide, what is left? Fiscal policy? I agree, but good luck getting these countries gripped by fear of government bonds to do that.

You fail to realize the backlash that would come with such policies. The German finance minister has already criticized Draghi, claiming he is partly responsible for the rise of the extreme right party in Germany.

The academics who run central banks do not operate in a political vacuum.

But they do operate in an intellectual echo chamber where rdean would come across as an open mind.

 

[william the wie]

This site was a little slow so, I checked out some market websites.

1) Between company buybacks, short interest and capital flight to our relatively high interest rate environment. We're undergoing a bear hunt comparable to 1930,.87, 99 and 2007. So, the crash will likely hit next year.

2) At $43/bbl oil is above the breakeven point for renewed fracking which will lead to liquidation to sovereign wealth funds in the rest of the world and that will make it hard for ISIS, N Korea and other bad actors to stay in business.

3) regardless of the outcome of the Brexit vote a precedent will be set for more exit votes around the world.

This is the nightmare scenario for the Washington-Boston corridor.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Why not?
When the central banks profit on falls as much as rises - then so be it. (For them)
Since 2009, the top 7% earners in America, which an improper high percentage are investors, have realized an unbelievable 33% earnings increase. It is an extraordinary time to be wealthy in America.
At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.
On average, 100% - every dime of this faux recovery has went to the richest of the rich. So why on earth would they do anything to prevent a future fall - when they do equally well in the government bailouts that created yet another faux rise??

 

[Zander]

The world's central bankers are clueless. They stumble from one short-term fiscal or monetary stimulus to the next. Producing sugar highs and creating more and more unproductive debt. It does nothing to help long-term growth.

It's time they came to their senses and admit they've failed. .......Don't hold your breath.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not?
When the central banks profit on falls as much as rises - then so be it. (For them)
Since 2009, the top 7% earners in America, which an improper high percentage are investors, have realized an unbelievable 33% earnings increase. It is an extraordinary time to be wealthy in America.
At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.
On average, 100% - every dime of this faux recovery has went to the richest of the rich. So why on earth would they do anything to prevent a future fall - when they do equally well in the government bailouts that created yet another faux rise??

At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.

You have a link for this stat?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You don't understand Helicopter Money, Toro. You are a bull in a China shop on this issue. You do understand that the proper manifestation of helicopter money is entirely debt free in its application. It is not a fiscal policy, but rather a monetary policy with positive fiscal results. http://www.talkmarkets.com/content/economics--politics-education/responsibly-expand-the-monetary-base-before-it-is-too-late?post=93323&uid=4798

Over the past 8 years the US Government and the Fed issued $13T of money at stupidly low interest rates -- THAT'S HOW YOU SPELL HELICOPTER MONEY!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Why not?
When the central banks profit on falls as much as rises - then so be it. (For them)
Since 2009, the top 7% earners in America, which an improper high percentage are investors, have realized an unbelievable 33% earnings increase. It is an extraordinary time to be wealthy in America.
At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.
On average, 100% - every dime of this faux recovery has went to the richest of the rich. So why on earth would they do anything to prevent a future fall - when they do equally well in the government bailouts that created yet another faux rise??

At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.

You have a link for this stat?

Trying to find it......
US Household Income | Department of Numbers

Median Income 2009....... $55,415....median 2014 $53657.... - 3.1%, but that includes the earnings increase of the upper 7%.
I'll find it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not?
When the central banks profit on falls as much as rises - then so be it. (For them)
Since 2009, the top 7% earners in America, which an improper high percentage are investors, have realized an unbelievable 33% earnings increase. It is an extraordinary time to be wealthy in America.
At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.
On average, 100% - every dime of this faux recovery has went to the richest of the rich. So why on earth would they do anything to prevent a future fall - when they do equally well in the government bailouts that created yet another faux rise??

At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.

You have a link for this stat?

Trying to find it......
US Household Income | Department of Numbers

Median Income 2009....... $55,415....median 2014 $53657.... - 3.1%, but that includes the earnings increase of the upper 7%.
I'll find it.

Thanks for the link.

You shouldn't confuse average with median.
Everyone above the median could double their income and the median would remain unchanged.
It's not a very useful stat.

 

[william the wie]

Why not?
When the central banks profit on falls as much as rises - then so be it. (For them)
Since 2009, the top 7% earners in America, which an improper high percentage are investors, have realized an unbelievable 33% earnings increase. It is an extraordinary time to be wealthy in America.
At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.
On average, 100% - every dime of this faux recovery has went to the richest of the rich. So why on earth would they do anything to prevent a future fall - when they do equally well in the government bailouts that created yet another faux rise??

At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.

You have a link for this stat?

Trying to find it......
US Household Income | Department of Numbers

Median Income 2009....... $55,415....median 2014 $53657.... - 3.1%, but that includes the earnings increase of the upper 7%.
I'll find it.

I'm with Zander on this. This kind of disaster when academic economists try to redistribute wealth more evenly is par for the course.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Why not?
When the central banks profit on falls as much as rises - then so be it. (For them)
Since 2009, the top 7% earners in America, which an improper high percentage are investors, have realized an unbelievable 33% earnings increase. It is an extraordinary time to be wealthy in America.
At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.
On average, 100% - every dime of this faux recovery has went to the richest of the rich. So why on earth would they do anything to prevent a future fall - when they do equally well in the government bailouts that created yet another faux rise??

At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.

You have a link for this stat?

Trying to find it......
US Household Income | Department of Numbers

Median Income 2009....... $55,415....median 2014 $53657.... - 3.1%, but that includes the earnings increase of the upper 7%.
I'll find it.

Thanks for the link.

You shouldn't confuse average with median.
Everyone above the median could double their income and the median would remain unchanged.
It's not a very useful stat.

Here is a better link...this is 2013, the data I spoke of was 2015.
As of 2013...for those 4 years the income of the top 7% rose 28%
Meanwhile the remaining 93% fell dropped by 4%.
A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93%

This is Pew research, so not some flunky blog. This is real stuff.
Barrack Obama has consistently exercised the greatest use of trickle down economics in U.S. history. Reagan is a mere blip on the radar in his use of trickle down - yet the Democrats and the media are so far up his ass they do not even know it.
And Hillary Clinton has every Goddamn intention to continue the transfer of both ownership of property and wealth to an elite few....and it will be Democrats -NOT- Republicans that will vote her in to do so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not?
When the central banks profit on falls as much as rises - then so be it. (For them)
Since 2009, the top 7% earners in America, which an improper high percentage are investors, have realized an unbelievable 33% earnings increase. It is an extraordinary time to be wealthy in America.
At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.
On average, 100% - every dime of this faux recovery has went to the richest of the rich. So why on earth would they do anything to prevent a future fall - when they do equally well in the government bailouts that created yet another faux rise??

At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.

You have a link for this stat?

Trying to find it......
US Household Income | Department of Numbers

Median Income 2009....... $55,415....median 2014 $53657.... - 3.1%, but that includes the earnings increase of the upper 7%.
I'll find it.

Thanks for the link.

You shouldn't confuse average with median.
Everyone above the median could double their income and the median would remain unchanged.
It's not a very useful stat.

Here is a better link...this is 2013, the data I spoke of was 2015.
As of 2013...for those 4 years the income of the top 7% rose 28%
Meanwhile the remaining 93% fell dropped by 4%.
A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93%

This is Pew research, so not some flunky blog. This is real stuff.
Barrack Obama has consistently exercised the greatest use of trickle down economics in U.S. history. Reagan is a mere blip on the radar in his use of trickle down - yet the Democrats and the media are so far up his ass they do not even know it.
And Hillary Clinton has every Goddamn intention to continue the transfer of both ownership of property and wealth to an elite few....and it will be Democrats -NOT- Republicans that will vote her in to do so.

Thanks again, but your claim was income and this link was wealth.
And the data was only 2009-2011.
Housing values and stocks have increased since 2011.
That helps the bottom 93%, but the top 7% more.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Why not?
When the central banks profit on falls as much as rises - then so be it. (For them)
Since 2009, the top 7% earners in America, which an improper high percentage are investors, have realized an unbelievable 33% earnings increase. It is an extraordinary time to be wealthy in America.
At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.
On average, 100% - every dime of this faux recovery has went to the richest of the rich. So why on earth would they do anything to prevent a future fall - when they do equally well in the government bailouts that created yet another faux rise??

At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.

You have a link for this stat?

Trying to find it......
US Household Income | Department of Numbers

Median Income 2009....... $55,415....median 2014 $53657.... - 3.1%, but that includes the earnings increase of the upper 7%.
I'll find it.

Thanks for the link.

You shouldn't confuse average with median.
Everyone above the median could double their income and the median would remain unchanged.
It's not a very useful stat.

Here is a better link...this is 2013, the data I spoke of was 2015.
As of 2013...for those 4 years the income of the top 7% rose 28%
Meanwhile the remaining 93% fell dropped by 4%.
A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93%

This is Pew research, so not some flunky blog. This is real stuff.
Barrack Obama has consistently exercised the greatest use of trickle down economics in U.S. history. Reagan is a mere blip on the radar in his use of trickle down - yet the Democrats and the media are so far up his ass they do not even know it.
And Hillary Clinton has every Goddamn intention to continue the transfer of both ownership of property and wealth to an elite few....and it will be Democrats -NOT- Republicans that will vote her in to do so.

Thanks again, but your claim was income and this link was wealth.
And the data was only 2009-2011.
Housing values and stocks have increased since 2011.
That helps the bottom 93%, but the top 7% more.

I am honestly trying to find it, it was an article I read, with data that was earnings and not overall wealth.
I will find it...Google is awesome...but it is also mind-numbingly large.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

At the same time the remaining 97% of us (WHO HAVE JOBS) - have suffered through an average 5% LOSS in income.

You have a link for this stat?

Trying to find it......
US Household Income | Department of Numbers

Median Income 2009....... $55,415....median 2014 $53657.... - 3.1%, but that includes the earnings increase of the upper 7%.
I'll find it.

Thanks for the link.

You shouldn't confuse average with median.
Everyone above the median could double their income and the median would remain unchanged.
It's not a very useful stat.

Here is a better link...this is 2013, the data I spoke of was 2015.
As of 2013...for those 4 years the income of the top 7% rose 28%
Meanwhile the remaining 93% fell dropped by 4%.
A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93%

This is Pew research, so not some flunky blog. This is real stuff.
Barrack Obama has consistently exercised the greatest use of trickle down economics in U.S. history. Reagan is a mere blip on the radar in his use of trickle down - yet the Democrats and the media are so far up his ass they do not even know it.
And Hillary Clinton has every Goddamn intention to continue the transfer of both ownership of property and wealth to an elite few....and it will be Democrats -NOT- Republicans that will vote her in to do so.

Thanks again, but your claim was income and this link was wealth.
And the data was only 2009-2011.
Housing values and stocks have increased since 2011.
That helps the bottom 93%, but the top 7% more.

I am honestly trying to find it, it was an article I read, with data that was earnings and not overall wealth.
I will find it...Google is awesome...but it is also mind-numbingly large.

Thanks for trying, but I think that claim is wrong. I don't think you'll be able to find back up for that.