Central Banks finally out of Bullets? QE=Fail, NIRP=Fail

[santafe2]

Re: Central Banks finally out of Bullets? QE=Fail, NIRP=Fail

Well I didn't write it - but if pointing out that there is an abundance/bubble of almost everything due to cheap Fed fiat, misallocation of capital, first access to cheap money, and a cornucopia of business models that wouldn't exist without it is "doomer" thinking - then colour me doomer. Of course, you have to show up and actually vote, no matter how many voters are in your demographic ...

And I didn't suggest that you wrote it but you posted a lie here as if it was truth. That is what doomers do. When there is a problem, they see the end. I see opportunity for change.

[chene]

Re: Central Banks finally out of Bullets? QE=Fail, NIRP=Fail

And I didn't suggest that you wrote it but you posted a lie here as if it was truth. That is what doomers do. When there is a problem, they see the end. I see opportunity for change.

You are a bit harsh on FiatCurrency santafe2. He never said it was the end of the world...

I am curious to understand why you think we are in a situation of under-capacity ? or may be just good ?
Us have closed its output gap and balance sheets are in good shape all over the world. Is it what you think ?

I'm honestly curious to understand your point.

[Woodsman]

Re: Central Banks finally out of Bullets? QE=Fail, NIRP=Fail

You are a bit harsh on FiatCurrency santafe2. He never said it was the end of the world...

I am curious to understand why you think we are in a situation of under-capacity ? or may be just good ?
Us have closed its output gap and balance sheets are in good shape all over the world. Is it what you think ?

I'm honestly curious to understand your point.

For some context, I suggest folks refer to EJ's posts

The American Output Gap Trap – Part I: We have three years to escape or we’re dead meat
Re: iTulip Portfolio Strategy – Section 1, Part II: The Devil’s in the Details - Eric Janszen

Here's a great output gap visual from the Post on Why it doesn't feel like a recovery?

A recent chart.

Here is a log-scale chart of real GDP with an exponential regression, which helps us understand growth cycles since the 1947 inception of quarterly GDP. The latest number puts us 14.7% below trend, the largest negative spread in the history of this series.

And EJ's original.

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Central Banks finally out of Bullets? QE=Fail, NIRP=Fail

... you posted a lie here as if it was truth. That is what doomers do.

To quote my former Prime Minister when responding to your former President ... "I've been called worse by better people". When I think of your post, and the volume of crap posts that I have to wade through here to get to one minor nugget of useful information, it becomes clear to me why only the same 12 people post here over and over, and why this site is a mere shadow of its former self. Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.

[jk]

Re: Central Banks finally out of Bullets? QE=Fail, NIRP=Fail

To quote my former Prime Minister when responding to your former President ... "I've been called worse by better people". When I think of your post, and the volume of crap posts that I have to wade through here to get to one minor nugget of useful information, it becomes clear to me why only the same 12 people post here over and over, and why this site is a mere shadow of its former self. Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.

i just read over the posts in as objective a manner as i could muster.

fiat currency, i think there was nothing wrong with your choice to post that little essay. i also think there was nothing wrong with santa fe saying it was untrue and was the mark of a doomer.

i think the word "lie" is mis-used and also is unnecessarily provocative when compared to e.g. wrong, misleading, untrue. the difference is in the imputation of intent to deceive as opposed to mere error. a doomer believes that terrible things are about to happen. thus for a doomer to post such a prediction may be wrong, but cannot be a lie.

i disagree with santa fe's statement that posting it made YOU a doomer, fc. for example, i will occasionally post things with which i disagree because i think they are nonetheless thought provoking. but on the third hand, i think that calling someone a doomer is not that big a deal. of course i say that as something of a doomer myself.

in sum, i suggest everyone take a deep breath and calm down. otherwise we will soon exemplify godwin's law.

[santafe2]

Re: Central Banks finally out of Bullets? QE=Fail, NIRP=Fail

To quote my former Prime Minister when responding to your former President ... "I've been called worse by better people". When I think of your post, and the volume of crap posts that I have to wade through here to get to one minor nugget of useful information, it becomes clear to me why only the same 12 people post here over and over, and why this site is a mere shadow of its former self. Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.

Sorry for the tone of the 2nd post Fiat. I find it frustrating when I make a simple point of fact and that point is conflated with other points made by the author.

The author's reasoning is based on an incorrect assumption; "the [US] electorate is old". Then working from this incorrect assumption he falls into full blown doomerism; "they don't care about the future. They don't have one...". And then my favorite, "We live in their basement."

Poor, helpless little Joshua Brown. A doomer, living in a boomer basement and whining about abundance.

[vt]

Re: Central Banks finally out of Bullets? QE=Fail, NIRP=Fail

It's going to be difficult to close the output gap:

"The United States has now gone a record 10 straight years without 3 percent growth in real Gross Domestic Product, according to data released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.




Before this period, the longest stretch of years when real GDP did not grow by at least 3.0 percent, as calculatd by the BEA, was the four-year stretch from 1930 to 1933—during the Great Depression.
In addition to that four-stretch from 1930-1933, there have also been four three-year stretches where the real annual growth in GDP did not go as high as 3.0 percent. Those periods were 1945-1947 (in the immediate aftermath of World War II); 1956-1958; 1980-1982; and 2001-2003.
The longest consecutive stretch of years in which the United State saw real GDP grow by 3.0 percent or better was the seven year period from 1983-1989, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
The second longest stretch of years in which the U.S. saw real GDP grow by 3.0 percent or better was the six-year period from 1939 through 1944. (World War II started in Europe in 1939 and the U.S. entered the war in December 1941 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.)"

[jk]

Re: Central Banks finally out of Bullets? QE=Fail, NIRP=Fail

anybody wonder whether "potential gdp" is really potentially real? somehow just extending a curve doesn't mean that that future extension is genuinely within the realm of possibility. if 2% is "the new normal" does that mean that somehow we're not living up to our potential? ["if johnny would only buckle down and do his homework..." - a common report card comment for kids with attention deficit disorder btw. the analogies are left as an exercise for the reader.]

there is a technological argument i came across recently that said that the period from the late 19th century to the late 20th century saw technological change at a level that cannot be repeated. horses to jet planes. pony express to wifi and voip. the next iteration of the iphone is just not in the same league. a lot of basic technology took shape in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, then was broadly implemented post-ww ii. our gdp graph starts in 1949.

so perhaps that graph showing growth from 1949 on is misleading. transistor-invented 1947, commercial silicon transistor 1954, integrated circuit patented 1959.

first electronic turing-complete computer: eniac- 1946. our graph starts 1949. late 1950's- when mainframes first walked the earth. dumb terminals with timesharing on mainframes gave way to microcomputers and kit-computers in the 1970's. the commodore pet and the apple ii appeared in 1977. in 1981 ibm brought out the pc. i bought my first computer in 1982- a kaypro with a z80 chip running cpm, with 64K [K!] of ram and 2 5.25" floppy slots. 30 years later i'm typing on a late 2012 model macbook pro and sending this post over wifi to my router, to the comcast cable to the backbone to itulip's server and on to you. the phone in my pocket has more computing power than the apollo mission that went to the moon. is this level of technological development replicable? is it a crescendo or an s-curve?

our graph of economic growth begins: 1949. maybe the "potential" in that curve was never really potential at all.

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Central Banks finally out of Bullets? QE=Fail, NIRP=Fail

... there is a technological argument i came across recently that said that the period from the late 19th century to the late 20th century saw technological change at a level that cannot be repeated. horses to jet planes. pony express to wifi and voip. the next iteration of the iphone is just not in the same league. a lot of basic technology took shape in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, then was broadly implemented post-ww ii. our gdp graph starts in 1949.

so perhaps that graph showing growth from 1949 on is misleading. transistor-invented 1947, commercial silicon transistor 1954, integrated circuit patented 1959.

first electronic turing-complete computer: eniac- 1946. our graph starts 1949. late 1950's- when mainframes first walked the earth. dumb terminals with timesharing on mainframes gave way to microcomputers and kit-computers in the 1970's. the commodore pet and the apple ii appeared in 1977. in 1981 ibm brought out the pc. i bought my first computer in 1982- a kaypro with a z80 chip running cpm, with 64K [K!] of ram and 2 5.25" floppy slots. 30 years later i'm typing on a late 2012 model macbook pro and sending this post over wifi to my router, to the comcast cable to the backbone to itulip's server and on to you. the phone in my pocket has more computing power than the apollo mission that went to the moon. is this level of technological development replicable? is it a crescendo or an s-curve?

our graph of economic growth begins: 1949. maybe the "potential" in that curve was never really potential at all.

This is a topic of great interest to me. Here's an extract from a presentation of mine that is a visual representation of much of what you cite - but takes the viewpoint of what affect it has had on mankind & our population ... [~8.5MB]

Tech extract.pdf

[jk]

Re: Central Banks finally out of Bullets? QE=Fail, NIRP=Fail

This is a topic of great interest to me. Here's an extract from a presentation of mine that is a visual representation of much of what you cite - but takes the viewpoint of what affect it has had on mankind & our population ... [~8.5MB]

[ATTACH]5765[/ATTACH]

neat presentation, though i'm not sure that i'd count liposuction and rollerblades as major advances. ;-) your graph of population growth at the end looks like a graph of the current distribution of wealth.

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Central Banks finally out of Bullets? QE=Fail, NIRP=Fail

neat presentation, though i'm not sure that i'd count liposuction and rollerblades as major advances. ;-) your graph of population growth at the end looks like a graph of the current distribution of wealth.

Thanks - those items are there for a reason - one so I can later speak to adipose stem cells, and the other regarding mankind's need for fun and entertainment (the yo-yo is there too). Rollerblades morphed into skateboards and now hover boards for instance. The population clusters are also a good proxy for global GDP - as all those people are doing something to keep themselves in food, clothing and shelter.