You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

[gwynedd1]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Seems pretty simple to me. Anything purchased through finance is facing deflationary pressure. That would be things like real estate and RVs. There are fewer borrowers out there. You might also see some consumer discretionary price drops especially aimed at the middle class like an evening out to relative upscale dinning for the middle class like a chain steak house(look for $5 off coupons) . However some of it will be embedded with hidden inflation, aka selling less of less as mentioned here. The side effects of the Fed actions to prop up assets purchased through finance is driving up consumer prices and inelastic commodities that people must have like food and gas.

[raja]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Mish actually uses the words "I was wrong" in a few areas, but I never saw them used in any area which Sitka Capital is involved.

This is a big problem.

Each of the examples above is a passive-aggressive statement: I was right, but not completely right.

EJ has stated flat out that he was wrong in a number of examples where the facts showed this to be so - starting from the housing bubble, to the length/breadth of the first bounce, etc etc.

I guess my degree in clinical psychology (yes, I did have another life before becoming a farmer) was lacking, because I fail to see how any of Mish's statements that I quoted are "passive-aggressive".

[raja]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

At least three massive problems with it.

1. It ignores gov't debt. If new debt can't be spent like money (as in a medium of exchange), then he has little clue what money really is.
2. He also used to (and for many years) not consider credit as money in spite of massive efforts and evidence to the contrary, and would go off in rant/attack mode on anyone who thought otherwise. That's arrogance in my book.
3. It ignores that "marked to market" frequently has little to do with actual value - and is also *extremely* difficult to measure, thereby giving him an easy out when confronted with contrary facts.

There's also the issue of it being yet another of his invented definitions. It's also 100% contrary to Hayek.

You also didn't note that he basically doesn't consider generally rising or falling prices as evidence of inflation or deflation. That's serious tortured logic.

Those items and many more (a complete failure and refusal for many years to take any of shadowstats facts about CPI being way too low into account, using an attempted CPI mod that uses Case Shiller instead of OER with an implied assumption that folk move and trade housing way more frequently than they actually do to support his bogus deflation thesis [which has been 100% wrong since at least 2004], an assertion that gold doesn't track inflation which is 100% contrary to the facts, calling folk "Keynesian clowns" while always ignoring that Keynes said that one must save and pay down during good times, a complete failure to note that currency intervention does work [the Paris & Louvre Accords worked for years as just one example - and that interventions can massively zap shorter term returns is another area that has conveniently never been addressed], etc. etc.) tell the actual story for those who see a broader picture.

Bart,

Thank you for your response.
I like it when those whom I rely on for advice -- in this case, Mish -- are criticized, since it gives me a chance to see if my trust in them is warranted.

I spent about 30 minutes on your post about Mish's failings, verifying from a variety of sources and analyzing.
My trust in Mish still remains.
Although I like to be helpful, my main goal in participating in this website is to refine my understanding, not to correct or convince others, therefore I won't mount a defense of Mish. And, I don't think it would do anything to alter your views, anyway.

However, you did uncover one failing of mine . . . .

You said: "You also didn't note that he basically doesn't consider generally rising or falling prices as evidence of inflation or deflation. That's serious tortured logic."

You are exactly right.
When I read yernamehear's comment about "tortured logic", my mind mistakenly read "tortuous logic".
Mish's definition of deflation is not "tortuous", but it certainly is "tortured".
I hasten to add that being "tortured" doesn't necessarily make it incorrect, or not useful, or worse than the standard definition. In fact, it might even be better.

[bart]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Bart,

Thank you for your response.
I like it when those whom I rely on for advice -- in this case, Mish -- are criticized, since it gives me a chance to see if my trust in them is warranted.

I spent about 30 minutes on your post about Mish's failings, verifying from a variety of sources and analyzing.
My trust in Mish still remains.
Although I like to be helpful, my main goal in participating in this website is to refine my understanding, not to correct or convince others, therefore I won't mount a defense of Mish. And, I don't think it would do anything to alter your views, anyway.

However, you did uncover one failing of mine . . . .

You said: "You also didn't note that he basically doesn't consider generally rising or falling prices as evidence of inflation or deflation. That's serious tortured logic."

You are exactly right.
When I read yernamehear's comment about "tortured logic", my mind mistakenly read "tortuous logic".
Mish's definition of deflation is not "tortuous", but it certainly is "tortured".
I hasten to add that being "tortured" doesn't necessarily make it incorrect, or not useful, or worse than the standard definition. In fact, it might even be better.

Fair enough raja.

I honestly fail to see where any of the items I offered are factually or even substantially incorrect, but as you basically noted/implied iTulip is about trading views and no one is obliged or required to accept another posters views or facts or whatever. We're free to agree to disagree here, and without rancor or similar.

I also have been know to have been incorrect many times in my life, and could be about at least some of what I've said and believe about Mish, but I don't think so. His bit about deflation not basically being related to falling prices and vice versa is, I believe, potentially extremely dangerous to one's net worth, investing approach and much more - like any bald generality with a tiny kernel of truth is.

I should also note that I do read him frequently, like I also sometimes read Krugman and others with whom I strongly disagree or believe have vested interests that blind them to a fuller and more complete picture.

[Chris Coles]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Late to the party; can only smile

[Chris Coles]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

And then I was reminded of this small part of a wonderful Willaim Cowper poem: The Progress of error.

Your blunderer is as sturdy as a rock.
The creature is so sure to kick and bite,
A muleteer's the man to set him right.
First Appetite enlists him Truth's sworn foe,
Then obstinate Self-will confirms him so.
Tell him he wanders; that his error leads
To fatal ills; that, though the path he treads
Be flowery, and he see no cause of fear,
Death and the pains of Hell attend him there;
In vain; the slave of arrogance and pride,
he has no hearing on the prudent side.
His still refuted quirks he still repeats;
new raised objections with new quibbles meets;
Till, sinking in the quicksand he defends,
He dies disputing, and the contest ends -
But not the mischiefs; they, still left behind,
Like thistle seeds, are sown by every wind.
Thus men go wrong with an ingenious skill;
Bend the straight rule to their own crooked will;
And with a clear and shining lamp supplied,
First put it out, then take it for a guide.
Halting on crutches of unequal size,
One leg by truth supported, one by lies;
They sidle to the goal with awkward pace,
Secure of nothing but to lose the race.

Poems by William Cowper, Esq. Vol 1, 1821 pages 36,37

[Sharky]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Does anyone know why the first post in this thread is from steveaustin2006 (dated 2004!), rather than EJ? It only seems to show up first in linear mode, not in threaded mode.

[jiimbergin]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Does anyone know why the first post in this thread is from steveaustin2006 (dated 2004!), rather than EJ? It only seems to show up first in linear mode, not in threaded mode.

for the last day or so the date has been messed up on several posts. Thus on steve's somehow the system put in a 2004 date so his post is now shown first.

[Down Under]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

for the last day or so the date has been messed up on several posts. Thus on steve's somehow the system put in a 2004 date so his post is now shown first.

Probably because they took the email exchange out & somehow that screwed things up

[c1ue]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

I guess my degree in clinical psychology (yes, I did have another life before becoming a farmer) was lacking, because I fail to see how any of Mish's statements that I quoted are "passive-aggressive".

Perhaps passive-aggressive isn't the right word. You can instead think self justifying with faint acknowledgment of error.

I should also note that I do read him frequently, like I also sometimes read Krugman and others with whom I strongly disagree or believe have vested interests that blind them to a fuller and more complete picture.

I prefer to not pollute my sensibilities with the outputs from morons. Even if I know what I am reading is wrong, the repetition of said idiocy is difficult to keep out of the mental horizon.

This in essence is how the Bullhorn works.

Of course I freely admit that I rely on all you avid pan-spectrum readers to bring in the rare examples of useful information from said myriad moronic sources.

[touchring]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Also, contrary to what you experienced, I find Mish to be very consistent, objective, and data-driven . . . but not data-driven in the same way that EJ is. Mish does not do the in-depth data analysis that EJ does -- coming up with a lengthy article every month or so -- but that's not what he's trying to do. When people criticize him for not providing the same type of info EJ does, that is a mistake.

Not saying that I agree with the iTulip view, but the past few years logic don't work, especially for bubble markets.

Why are the prices of commercial properties in Beijing still rising when 30%-40% of them are empty and can't be rented out? Real estate in China is a bubble, Gold is a bubble.

Why is Bernanke printing money to send to China for them to build up their army and aircraft carrier to use against his country in a future war? This also doesn't make sense. There are many things happening around us that don't make sense.

[metalman]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Not saying that I agree with the iTulip view, but the past few years logic don't work, especially for bubble markets.

Why are the prices of commercial properties in Beijing still rising when 30%-40% of them are empty and can't be rented out? Real estate in China is a bubble, Gold is a bubble.

Why is Bernanke printing money to send to China for them to build up their army and aircraft carrier to use against his country in a future war? This also doesn't make sense. There are many things happening around us that don't make sense.

mishmash is a cut/paste/comment blogger who spews crackpot ideas/criticisms/interpretations of serious hard work done by pro analysis. he comprehends the language of econ & finance like an american tourist in tokyo understands japapese... after reading a japanese phrase book on the flight over. he does his cut/paste/comment hatchet job on other folks' work with the dedication & persistence & skill of a squirrel at a bird feeder & takes a similar approach... try this & try that... to get at the tasty nuts & seeds inside.

you can chalk up the success & popularity of mishmash to this... his readers need a daily fix of msm/bankster/gov't/fed bashing & gold pumping & he delivers... & his readers understand even less about economics than he does... don't know his ideas are bs.

a notch above glen beck... but only 1 notch. if mishmash ratchets up the populist bs & delivers 2x more silly/simplified theories on economics, he shall be as popular as beck used to be... before he got carried away & lost his nut.

[bart]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Originally Posted by bart
I should also note that I do read him frequently, like I also sometimes read Krugman and others with whom I strongly disagree or believe have vested interests that blind them to a fuller and more complete picture.

I prefer to not pollute my sensibilities with the outputs from morons. Even if I know what I am reading is wrong, the repetition of said idiocy is difficult to keep out of the mental horizon.

This in essence is how the Bullhorn works.

Of course I freely admit that I rely on all you avid pan-spectrum readers to bring in the rare examples of useful information from said myriad moronic sources.

Understood and agreed, but my purpose in reading folk like Krugman and Mish-Mash is primarily to see what kind of crud and half truths and outright lies etc. that they're promoting.

I take notes and can and may write some hard hitting articles that easily debunk most of their "special moments" and BS etc. Its far from tough - just in my last post I named subjects for at least 6 articles that could be written that would incontrovertibly prove how little clue (pun not intended) Mish Mash has.

And to be fair, they each do very occasionally come up with something decent - mostly by quoting someone who really does know something. The most recent one I recall is when he mentioned Reinhart & Rogoff... which EJ mentioned literally years ago.

[flintlock]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Sometimes douchebags have to be called out or they go on forever. Sounds like EJ turned both cheeks before posting this. There is a difference between being polite and being a wimp. I know nothing about Mish but just the misspelled name thing shows him for what he is. Anyone who thinks that's not passive aggressive is naive.

[raja]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Sometimes douchebags have to be called out or they go on forever. Sounds like EJ turned both cheeks before posting this. There is a difference between being polite and being a wimp. I know nothing about Mish but just the misspelled name thing shows him for what he is. Anyone who thinks that's not passive aggressive is naive.

Mish corrected the mispelling error when he learned of it.