Jim Rickards Congressional Testimony March 2012

[doom&gloom]

http://banking.senate.gov/public/ind...3-4e8eb1c4c9d3

An excellent read, so I wonder if anyone on "the Hill" understood him.

[tacito]

Re: Jim Rickards Congressional Testimony March 2012

Retirees are voters. They may have understood that.

[Mega]

Re: Jim Rickards Congressional Testimony March 2012

Just reading "Currancy wars" now, just to the end of Brent woods & "Nixon shock".
Mike

[Raz]

Re: Jim Rickards Congressional Testimony March 2012

I read it as I always read anything Rickards has to say.

His indictment of the Fed is spot-on and his recommended therapy is correct, especially his veiled suggestion to bring back the Banking Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall).
But admonishing men like Bachus and Frank is like preaching the benefits of chastity and self-denial to high-living whores.

[D-Mack]

Re: Jim Rickards Congressional Testimony March 2012

So retirees will provide the money for enough growth to get rid of seemingly
unpayable debt?

The United States, indeed the world, is mired in a swamp of seemingly
unpayable debt. In these circumstances, there are only three ways out – default,
inflation and growth. The first is unthinkable. The second is the current path of
the Fed although it can only be pursued in stealth. The third is the traditional path
of the American people. Growth does not begin with consumption, it begins with
investment. Only when private productive investment is encouraged and pursued
does consumption follow as the fruit of that investment.
America’s retirees and near retirees are ready, willing and able to provide the
prudent savings needed to fuel investment and growth. All they ask in return is
stable money, positive returns and a friendly investment climate. The Fed’s policy
of money printing and negative returns is anathema to investment and growth.
Until the Fed’s war on savers is ended and reversed income security for retirees
will be an illusion.

[charliebrown]

Re: Jim Rickards Congressional Testimony March 2012

This does does beg the question, where is the retiree's wealth now?
Stocks? Bonds? CDs? In their matress?

I assume the author means that the retiree will put his money back into a savings account etc and this will be loaned out to some diserving business. But if the retiree sells their stock who is going to buy it? And where is that person going to get the money to buy the stock from the retiree, from their savings account? That is a net new savings amount of zero right?

It seems like the only way to get intrest rates up is to destroy money.

Ohh my brain hurts.

[vinoveri]

Re: Jim Rickards Congressional Testimony March 2012

I read it as I always read anything Rickards has to say.

His indictment of the Fed is spot-on and his recommended therapy is correct, especially his veiled suggestion to bring back the Banking Act of 1933 (Glass-Steagall).
But admonishing men like Bachus and Frank is like preaching the benefits of chastity and self-denial to high-living whores.

It's worse because your analogy is in fact reality.

It's what power always does when it can't refute with reason or discredit with ad hominen ... it simply ignores truth.

[solitas777]

Re: Jim Rickards Congressional Testimony March 2012

I think he might be a little naive in believing we can grow our way out of the massive debt. I think we should try a little of all three.